Item 8.9 - Attachment 2 |
Submission Draft
Policy Statement More Local More Accountable Plan Making - Proposed
Amendments to the LEP Making Process |
SUBMISSION – DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT – MORE LOCAL, MORE ACCOUNTABLE PLAN MAKING
proposed amendments to the LEP maKING
PROCESS
There are two proposed changes to the LEP making process in
the draft Policy Statement prepared by the Department of Planning and
Infrastructure (Department) entitled, More
local, more accountable plan making. This submission provides comments on
both proposals.
1. Delegate the making of routine LEPs to councils.
§ Greater delegation to councils is supported as
it will give councils greater responsibility. Councils previously
had similar delegation before the new Gateway system was introduced.
§ An independent review of the NSW planning
system is well underway and a white paper expected in the first half of this
year. Concern is expressed that the delegations being proposed will pre-empt
the outcome of the independent review.
§ It needs to be recognised that the process
of drafting amendments with Parliamentary Counsel is often the cause for delay.
The proposed changes do not address this.
§ Concern is raised about the degree of
process and administration the proposed frameworks will generate for councils.
Reporting will be important in providing advice on on-going improvements to the
system however they will need to be designed in a manner to ensure they do not
become burdensome to councils.
§ Delegation criteria would need to be
very clear, especially around spot rezonings. Reference to an “endorsed
strategy” and “broader Government policy” is ambiguous. The criteria need to
specify exactly what an endorsed strategy is and what these broader Government
policies are.
§ Heritage LEPs that are supported by an
Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) endorsed study will require written
confirmation from the OEH prior to seeking Council’s endorsement to send the
planning proposal to the Department for gateway consideration. Allowing time to
receive this confirmation from the OEH, address other potential issues with the
planning proposal and meet internal reporting timeframes would exceed the
proposed 60 day timeframe for a council to make a determination, potentially
exposing the planning proposal to an unnecessary proposed pre-gateway review.
§ The Standard
technical requirements for LEP maps and Standard
requirements for LEP GIS data omit certain elements and are in need of
review. This has implications for when Councils would be making LEP amendments
under the proposed changes.
2. Allow for
independent reviews of some council and departmental decisions in the plan making
process.
§ This
proposal could potentially take
decision making away from councils. Concerns are
raised on certain aspects of this proposal.
Pre-Gateway
reviews
§ There should be no opportunity for a proponent to request a review prior to Gateway
when a council decides to not prepare/support a proponent initiated planning
proposal. A pre-Gateway review would take decision making away from councils on
a policy matter. If the council does
not support a significant rezoning proposal, and this decision is
challenged by the proponent, the decision making powers are than given to the
JRPP/PAC. This proposal contradicts the notion of this draft policy statement
of “increasing councils’ roles and responsibilities” in plan making.
§ The 60 day
timeframe is inadequate and unrealistic for councils to assess and make a
determination on a planning proposal including a ‘routine LEP’ and in
particular a planning proposal that seeks a significant change to the current
zoning regime or existing development pattern in a locality, for the following
reasons:
o Even with a proponent
lodged fully-documented planning proposal, for significant proposals there
may be a range of studies to justify the proposal that need to be analysed.
This will require review by experts of reports addressing environmental issues,
contamination, flooding etc.
o Council
may seek preliminary advice from State Government Authorities e.g. Office
of Environment and Heritage.
o Council may engage
consultants to review specialist reports.
o Often planning
proposals require DCP amendments to address certain aspects that cannot be
accommodated in the instrument, and that need to be addressed and processed
with the planning proposal.
o Council may
concurrently negotiate a VPA in conjunction with a rezoning, which adds time to
the process.
o Council internal
reporting timeframes require reports to be finalised 1 month ahead of the
Council meeting; this process alone will only leave 30 days to complete the
above sub-points.
§ 'Spot rezonings' are often not
supported by existing local strategic plans and have a broader context than
just the 'spot'. For example a planning proposal may propose urban renewal
(mixed use with residential) of just one site within an industrial
precinct. This means broader precinct studies need to be done to update or
prepare a new local strategy. A 60 day timeframe is not enough time to review local
strategies. Additionally regional plans are still in draft form and in need of update
and finalisation.
§ Similarly to the concerns raised on the
ambiguity of the delegation criteria, the eligibility requirements/criteria for
pre-Gateway review are also vague (e.g. “is likely to be supported by agreement
from key environmental agencies”) and such is unlikely to be received within
the proposed 60 day timeframe.
§ Should a timeframe (working or calendar
days?) be imposed then there should be ‘stop the clock’ type provision to allow
for certain circumstances to occur such as; external referrals, internal
reporting timeframes, VPA negotiations or if the information submitted with the
planning proposal is inadequate or omitted.
Gateway reviews
§ Allowing either the council or a proponent
independently to instigate a Gateway review could be problematic. Should a
Gateway determination impose additional requirements (other than consultation
requirements) or makes variations to the proposal the council should be the
only stakeholder who can challenge a Gateway determination, not the proponent.
When a landowner instigated planning proposal is adopted by council it becomes
the council’s planning proposal. It should be the council’s responsibility to
discuss the Gateway determination and its position on the matter with the
landowner, not the Departments. This approach would be consistent with the
notion of this draft policy statement of “increasing councils’ roles and
responsibilities” in plan making.
§ Notwithstanding the concerns raised in this
submission, should a review process either pre or post Gateway be adopted,
councils should be given the opportunity to make representations at the JRPP/PAC
meeting at which any planning proposal is being reviewed given the more
extensive local knowledge of council. This would be consistent with the State
Government’s mantra of “handing back planning powers to the local community”.
Community
consultation
§ Uploading information about a planning
proposal at review stage on the Department’s web page will be ahead
of the formal public exhibition, will give rise to a 'pseudo' public
exhibition. Council will have to deal with public enquiries without there being
a framework in place for community comment and possibly without Council having
formed a view about the planning proposal.
§ Community consultation occurs too late in
the LEP making process - after a proposal has been considered by Council and the
Department at Gateway. Timeframes should allow for earlier consultation
particularly for major planning proposals. Council has previously resolved to
publicly exhibit planning proposals prior to endorsing them for Gateway
determination.