PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA HEARING AMENDMENT C112 TO THE GREATER SHEPPARTON PLANNING SCHEME to on Wednesday 20 th and Friday 22 nd May, 2015
1. About me 1 2. About us 1 3. About the amendment 1 4. HIA s Position 2 4.1 Introduction 2 4.2 Formal recognition within any planning scheme will bring unreasonable application requirements, design requirements and cost to the frontend of the Development Approvals Process 3 4.3 The status Clause 56 must be resolved 6 4.4 Proposed Clause 21.07-4 Infrastructure Design contains inconsistent and confusing language 7 5 Summary and Conclusion 8 HIA: Mike Hermon Assistant Director Planning & Environment, Victoria Housing Industry Association PO Box 1614 MELBOURNE VIC 3001
AMENDMENT C112 TO THE GREATER SHEPPARTON PLANNING SCHEME 1. About me Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike Hermon. I represent the Housing Industry Association (that is the HIA) and I will present this submission on behalf of our members. I am a qualified town planner and commenced employment with HIA as the Assistant Director Planning and Environment, Victoria in September 2014. Prior to my role at HIA I worked in various Victorian metropolitan councils in roles ranging from Subdivision Officer to Major Projects Team Leader, following my time as a local government planner I have worked for two consultancies in senior planning roles one with a focus on large national, state and local infrastructure projects the other with a focus on residential development and subdivision. At HIA my role comprises reviewing draft policy and regulation as it relates to the housing sector including planning scheme amendments and other strategic and statutory planning matters as required and following such review assessing lobbying priorities and preparing written and verbal responses is required, the role also requires advising builders regarding planning scheme requirements, changes to planning controls and other planning matters as required. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Amendment C112 to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme. 2. About us HIA is Australia s peak residential building industry association. HIA members comprise a diversity of residential builders, including all Top 100 builders, all major building industry manufacturers and suppliers as well as developers, small to medium builder members, contractors and consultants to the industry. In total HIA members construct over 85% of the nation s new building stock. HIA exists to service the businesses it represents, lobby for the best possible business environment for the building industry and to encourage a responsible and quality driven, affordable residential building development industry. HIA Mission To promote policies and provide services which enhance our members business practices, products and profitability, consistent with the highest standards of professional and commercial conduct 3. About the amendment Infrastructure Design Manual HIA understands that Amendment C112 seeks to give formal recognition to the Infrastructure Design Manual in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme (Explanatory Report). 1
Formal recognition, as referred to above, is proposed to be achieved by inserting the following dot point in Clauses; 21.07-1 Transport, 21.07-2 Urban and Rural Services and 21.07-3 Urban Stormwater Management: To ensure that new development complies with the Infrastructure Design Manual, Version 4.2, 2013. and inserting a new Section 4, in Clause 21.07 Infrastructure Clause. This new Section 21.07-4 would have the sub-heading Infrastructure Design, with the existing Section 4 Strategic Work Program to become Section 5 or (21.07-5). Following the introductory paragraphs the proposed new Clause 21.07-4 Infrastructure Design has the following categories: Objectives Infrastructure Design Strategies Infrastructure Design Policy Guidelines Infrastructure Design o General o Roads and Access o Drainage and Stormwater o Health and Wellbeing Should the Greater Shepparton City Council be successful in achieving formal recognition of the Infrastructure Design Manual in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme a consequential change will be deletion of the reference to the Infrastructure Design Manual, Shire of Campaspe, City of Greater Bendigo, Greater Shepparton City Council as referred to in Clause 21.09 Reference Documents under the heading Settlement and insertion of reference to the Infrastructure Design Manual, Version 4.2, IDM Board, 2013 at Clause 21.09 Reference Documents under the heading Infrastructure. 4. HIA s position 4.1 Introduction HIA objects to this amendment as it is not considered appropriate the IDM, as proposed, be given formal recognition in the planning scheme. It is submitted that the degree of technical detail for civil and traffic engineering requirements as proposed in the IDM was never intended to have formal recognition in the planning scheme so as to form part of the planning assessment and determination process. It is acknowledged that it is accepted industry practice that planning and infrastructure design must complement one another and there are obvious interactions, however formal recognition in the planning scheme in the manner proposed by this amendment is not necessary. HIA s objection is not necessarily with regard to the content of the IDM itself and as such a detailed technical review has not been undertaken. HIA s objection is more to do with how and where the IDM is proposed to be located and referenced in the planning scheme so as to provide the IDM with formal recognition, and increase the statutory weight the IDM will be given at the front end of 2
the Development Approvals Process refer Development Approvals Process diagram on the following page. Should the IDM be proven to have merit for inclusion as part of the planning assessment and determination process HIA submit it is appropriate to explore different means in which the IDM can be incorporated into the Development Approvals Process. Incorporation into the Development Approvals Process may require a broader statewide approach. 4.2 Formal recognition within any planning scheme will bring unreasonable application requirements, design requirements and cost to the front end of the Development Approvals Process As simply illustrated in Figure 4A Development Approvals Process (prepared by HIA), the Development Approvals Process requires various approvals to be obtained during the course of a development / subdivision through all design phases to construction. HIA submit that in ninety nine percent of cases an Application for a Planning Permit is the first application (regulatory approval etc.) required to be lodged as part of the Development Approvals Process and that the design requirements to determine if a parcel of land is suitable for development / subdivision should deal primarily with concept, functionality, issues relating to amenity, such as; lot size / dimension / orientation, public open space allocation and other land that must be set aside as reserves. Therefore as applying for a Planning Permit to develop / subdivide is the first regulatory step in obtaining development approval it is unreasonable at this stage of the Development Approval Process to expect the fine grain and all the technical detail, as included in the IDM, to be known. HIA have no doubt that should this amendment succeed - due to the discipline that local government statutory planning has become, that is large amounts of detailed associated information deemed necessary to be provided up front in order to assess and determine an application - that the level of engineering detail expected to be provided will also increase ten-fold and if not provided up front Council planners without any real consideration to what value-add will be achieved will request such detailed engineering information as part of Section 54 More information (Request for Further Information) simply because it is allowable to do so based on the formal recognition / increased statutory weight provided by the redraft of Clause 21.07 Infrastructure and Clause 21.09 Reference Documents. The drawback for applicants when local government planners request excessive amounts of detailed information upfront is that it disregards the realities of the Development Approval Process that certain changes in construction detail will occur but should not be bound by the planning permit. Changes in technical and construction detail are commonplace given changes to the availability or cost of materials, new technologies coming into the market affecting material choice, innovation being applied and changes to the economic situation or budget constraints. 3
Planning Planning and Environment Act 1987 Relevant Planning Scheme Section 47(1) (c) Applications for permits - be accompanied by the information required by the planning scheme Concept /Functional Layout, including for example: Number of lots Road network and connectivity Public Open Space and Reserves Section 54 More info (RFI) Planning Permit with conditions Endorsed Plans DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PROCESS For Land Development and Subdivision Subdivision Subdivision Act 1988 Relevant Planning Scheme Prepare formal Plan of Subdivision Internal referral Referral to authorities Certification Section 15 Council or referral authority may require an engineering plan for works Building Council Infrastructure Permits Road Reserve works permit Asset Protection Internal consent to issue Statement of Compliance Utilities / Servicing Authorities Main roads Sewer Water Electricity Gas Telecommunications Consent to issue Statement of Compliance These two components of the Development Approvals Process can (and are often required to) run simultaneously Statement of Compliance 4
HIA is not aware whether the proposal to give the IDM formal recognition in the planning scheme has been tested through a rigorous and comprehensive cost benefit and impact analysis to clearly determine if formal recognition of the IDM will deliver benefits to the development industry, public and private alike. HIA consider a cost benefit and impact analysis would be a worthwhile and important analytical exercise to be undertaken, prior to any further consideration of the IDM being given formal recognition in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme, with questions such as those below to be answered: How and Why was it determined that the IDM was suitable for formal recognition in the planning scheme? What procedural and economic benefits are there in providing formal recognition of the IDM in the planning scheme? and Explanatory Report HIA acknowledge that as part of the Planning Scheme Amendment process the Explanatory Report provides some opportunity for questions such as those above to be answered though HIA offers the following comments with regard to the two questions and answers below that form part of the Explanatory Report: NB: HIA emphasis by underlining How does the amendment address any economic effects? the response is The inclusion of the revised IDM in the planning scheme will provide certainty around the requirements for the provision of infrastructure. This will improve efficiency in planning processes and lead to a reduction in financial implications and greater surety at development stage. The proposed amendment is considered to have significant economic benefit to Council and the community. For the reasons provided above HIA does not agree inclusion of the revised IDM in the planning scheme will: o improve efficiency in the planning process It must be reasonably assumed that to improve efficiency there must be some known inefficiencies if so: What are these inefficiencies? and Is formal recognition of the IDM in the planning scheme the best means to overcome these inefficiencies? It is not clear to HIA how increasing applications requirements that will not add value to the assessment and determination of a planning application will improve efficiency in the planning process. o lead to a reduction in financial implications and greater surety at development stage 5
Application requirements will be increased significantly at a point in the Development Approvals Process where many technical matters are not yet known, this will lead to high upfront costs particularly with regard to drafting and design that have an extremely high likelihood of needing to be redrafted and redesigned later in the Development Approvals Process following approval to proceed being obtained ie. Planning permit and it is then cost effective and time efficient to explore technical elements in greater detail. o is considered to have significant economic benefit to Council and the community As it has not been adequately articulated it is unclear to HIA what are the significant economic benefits the Council and community will gain through formal recognition of the IDM in the planning scheme. Under Resources and administrative costs What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resource and administrative costs of the responsible authority? the response is The amendment is expected to have minimal impact on the resources and administrative costs of the responsible authority HIA does not agree that the new planning provisions will have a minimal impact on the resources and administrative costs of the responsible authority. HIA submit that the new planning provisions, which propose to give formal recognition to the IDM in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme will have a significant impact on the resources and administrative costs of the responsible authority as it will significantly increase the amount of technical information local government planners desire to be provided in order to assess and determine a planning application, yet without articulating the improved efficiencies the provision of such information will deliver. HIA submit strategic justification and rigorous cost benefit and impact analysis to support formal recognition of the IDM in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme in the form proposed by this amendment is lacking. HIA is mindful that our submission is not interpreted as applying the (Bert Lance) phrase if it ain t broke don t fix it rather HIA is suggesting that to date the Victorian approach to incorporating infrastructure design into the planning system has at best been applied ad-hoc and on a council by council basis - this is not as effective and efficient as it could be due to lacking uniformity and consistency and it would be unfortunate for this to continue when we are at a point in time where it is understood a broader statewide review of engineering standards; residential, industrial commercial and rural alike is likely to be commenced in the coming months. 4.3 The status Clause 56 Residential Subdivision must be resolved Clause 56 has been the corner stone of residential subdivision within Victoria for approximately 15 years with only minimal, minor and procedural amendments during that time. 6
The Purpose of Clause 56 is clearly articulated with each section providing adequate guidance for that topic. As part of the strategic justification suggested (by HIA) in Section 4.2 HIA submit there is a need to ascertain whether providing formal recognition to the IDM will conflict with or undermine in any way the current status of Clause 56. HIA submit that formal recognition to the IDM does have the potential to conflict with the current status of Clause 56 and that given the time since the inception of Clause 56 there may be benefit in a state wide review of Clause 56 prior to further council by council approach to introduce infrastructure design planning controls. Should a state wide review of Clause 56 be considered appropriate it would be an opportune time to explore whether it is suitable for some elements of the IDM to be incorporated into a revised Clause 56 or whether like other ResCode clauses (54 and 55) via a Schedule to Zones particular Standards could be varied to suit specific requirements of a particular municipality or geographic region. Should it be deemed reasonable that a review of Clause 56 and or a review of engineering standards for subdivision be undertaken prior to any formal recognition of the IDM in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme (or any other planning schemes) HIA would be willing to be actively involved in such a review process Though HIA wishes for it to be noted that notwithstanding the suggestion in the aforementioned paragraph regarding varied Standards via a Schedule HIA holds an established and consistent view with regard to how amended and or additional regulation should be implemented and this is just a suggestion for the purpose of promoting meaningful discussion but not necessary a view supported by HIA at this stage. 4.4 Proposed Clause 21.07-4 Infrastructure Design contains inconsistent and confusing language Language within the proposed Clause 21.07, particularly sub-clause 21.07-4, is inconsistent and likely to cause confusion. In earlier sub-clauses 1, 2 and 3 the last Objective for each is: NB: HIA emphasis by underlining. To ensure that new development complies with the Infrastructure Design Manual, Version 4.2, 2013. Whereas at the beginning of 21.07-4 The IDM has been developed by regional Councils and will be used to provide consultants and developers with Council preferred requirements in respect to planning and infrastructure needs. Similarly words and terms such as: which should be considered, should also be, should have, having regard to, diversity, discourage, regular, wherever possible, be informed by etc. have been used throughout 21.07-4. Such words and phrases have the potential to leave matters open to interpretation, whilst HIA considers it important to use discretionary wording in order to allow innovation to form an integral part of the design process improved wording such as generally in accordance with may provide overall benefits. 7
Notwithstanding HIA s in principle objection to this proposed amendment, it was requested on Day 1 of the hearing that all parties consider the wording regarding the IDM in the Campaspe Planning Scheme Clause 21.04 pg. 3 of 44 (that came about as a result of Am C86) in comparison to that proposed in Greater Shepparton Clause 21.07. HIA considers the Campaspe wording to be preferable as it is more concise with more of a guiding focus as to the intention of the IDM. 5. Summary and Conclusion Summarised and concluding comments Mr. Chairman are: HIA objects to Amendment C112 which proposes to give formal recognition to the Infrastructure Design Manual in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme. HIA consider it would be appropriate to abandon the amendment based on arguments we have put forward in this submission. It is not considered appropriate the IDM, as proposed, be given formal recognition in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme. The degree of technical detail for civil and traffic engineering requirements as proposed was never intended to have formal recognition in planning schemes. Formal recognition of the IDM in the Greater Shepparton Panning will lead to: o Unreasonable application requirements o Unreasonable design requirements for the planning stage of a development / subdivision o Unreasonable costs to the front end of the Development Approvals Process The Explanatory Report does not satisfactorily explain and demonstrate the economic and procedural benefits of giving formal recognition to the IDM in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme or the impact the new planning provisions will have on the resources and administrative costs for Greater Shepparton City Council. The potential conflict the IDM, if formally recognised in the manner proposed, may have with Clause 56 has not been adequately addressed. It is premature for such an amendment to be considered as it is understood a broader state-wide review of engineering standards; residential, industrial commercial and rural alike is likely to be commenced in the coming months and this may also incorporate a review of Clause 56. The language, words and phrases, of the proposed Clause 21.07 and in particular 21.07-4 is inconsistent and confusing and would benefit from a redraft to remove any ambiguity whilst containing discretionary language which provides opportunity for innovation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 8