“The community has little trust in decisions of the current planning authority despite their extraordinarily laborious internal processes now involving four stages of assessment of DAs with separate officers for each,” writes RICHARD JOHNSTON.

The whole development assessment process needed to be improved rather than removing third-party appeal rights, as proposed by the planning minister, several community council representatives suggested during discussion at an ACT Assembly Committee hearing.

The suggestions were made at the ACT Assembly Committee on Environment, Planning, Transport and City Services hearing into the Planning (Territory Priority Project) Amendment Bill last month.

I noted that the government had already abolished pre-DA community consultation, which should be an important part of the process, although the committee assured us it had not recommended that in its report on the Planning Act 2023.

I was a senior ACT government planner when we introduced the High Quality Sustainable Design (HQSD) process in June 2001, in response to community concerns about poor-quality redevelopments, particularly a proliferation of dual occupancies on street corners.

The emphasis was on “getting it right” at the design stage, before submission of the development application (DA).

 A 24-page booklet, Designing for High Quality & Sustainability, set out the process as a detailed “step-by-step guide”. It was mandatory for a wide range of proposals – all new multi-unit development including dual occupancies, new houses and large extensions in established areas and other non-residential development.

The booklet stated: “The aim is that designers consult with Planning and Land Management (PALM), Local Area Planning Advisory Committees (LAPACs) and neighbours during the site analysis and preliminary design stage, rather than only when the design is finalised, to ensure that the proposal responds to all relevant concerns.”

Five stages were identified in the booklet:

• Stage I was the Site Analysis Plan. It says: “Site analysis is an essential step in the design process for a successful development. It enables designers and assessors to appreciate more clearly the development context and the issues to which the design must respond.”
• Stage II was the submission of a “design concept” and its presentation to the LAPAC and “any neighbours who may be affected at the earliest possible opportunity”. It was also noted that “PALM may also discuss a proposal with the Commissioner for Land and Planning”, who was an independent, expert decision-maker for more significant and contentious DAs.
• Stage III was: Design Review Panel (a small group of very experienced PALM officers) “reviews the site analysis and development concepts”. 
• Stage IV was: “The proponent must submit a High Quality Sustainable Design Response Report that describes how the design responds to:
  • the site analysis,
  • the Quality Design Indicators,
  • the Residential Sustainability Index (where applicable),
  • comments of the Design Review Panel (where required),
  • comments of LAPAC (where required),
  • comments of neighbours, and
  • issues raised in pre-application meetings or correspondence from PALM.”
• Stage V was: “Manager Coordination & Quality Development, (PALM), provides written acceptance of the site analysis and the High Quality Sustainable Design Response Report”. “This enables ‘in principle’ acceptance of design concept prior to DA lodgement, subject to public comment, detailed assessment and final decision.”

Unfortunately, there was a change of government in October 2001 and the new Labor government embarked on its first planning system reform project, which abandoned HQSD, LAPACs, the Design Review Panel and the Commissioner for Land & Planning, in the name of “streamlining” the DA process. 

Much later the Labor government re-introduced an external Design Review Panel and a Pre-DA Community Consultation process, only to abandon the latter again under the recent ACT Planning System Review and Reform program, as apparently developers “didn’t like it”. 

This three-year program failed to address or seek improvement to any other aspect of the DA assessment process including subsequent review of planning authority decisions. 

In a move not suggested by the reform program, the planning minister has now proposed the removal of third-party appeal rights on public housing and health facilities. 

The community has little trust in decisions of the current planning authority despite their extraordinarily laborious internal processes now involving four stages of assessment of DAs with separate officers for each.

Much more emphasis on the pre-DA design stage would enable issues to be resolved earlier, hopefully greatly improving the efficiency of DA assessment and reducing the need for subsequent ACAT appeals. 

Consideration also needs to be given to reintroducing some form of independent, expert decision-making or review body, such as the NSW Local Planning Panels.

Richard Johnston is a former senior ACT government planner and a life fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia.