“Please find enclosed your development approval for the lodgment made last month.”
An idealistic architect’s feverish dream.
Having given councils a serve for the last two weeks it behooves some positive suggestions to fix.
Saying what needs fixing is much easier than how to implement it, but here goes.
Strategic plans
Firstly, and most importantly because everything else depends upon it, make really good strategic plans. Daniel Burnham, the great Chicago architect, once said: “Make no little plans… Make big plans, aim high in hope and work”. Not only do strategic plans need to be grand, as he was suggesting, but they also need to be both flexible and detailed. Flexible as to zoning, use and design options, and detailed as to form and ‘character’.
If council wants new buildings to fit “the future character of an area”, as is so often demanded in assessment, it cannot be solely implied, as it is currently. It is vital to spell out what that character is, in some detail in the strategic plan, and reflect it in the controls. And these controls should be updated to the 21stC by setting out a 3D digital envelope.
The physical controls in current plans are crude: FSR (floor space ratio) as a control of bulk, and planar heights and setbacks for size and scale. Inherently these indicate a volume, so why not say so? Do away with the old arithmetic, and adopt a 3D volumetric control against which any proposal can be compared and tested.
In this way the strategic plan can be very detailed about the environmental outcome in terms of sun, shadow, streetscape scale, amenity, crime prevention through design etc.
These diagrammatic controls were first envisaged by Ralph Knowles in the 1980s, well before 3D CAD was widely available, but are now being adopted by progressive authorities. Yes, the initial work is very intensive, requiring planners to evaluate every block in the urban area, but out of that work comes vision and certainty.
This is where the councillors have great input, we need to get the politicians back to the strategic planning and away from the rabble, roads, rates and rubbish. Councils need to formulate and stick to their strategic plans, never relying on the rubric of them being in ‘a state of flux’, which leads to a lack of confidence, confusion or worse, potential rorting.
Even if a 3D digital approach is not adopted, a detailed strategic plan is essential. A good plan makes the approval process much more manageable, and we can ‘triage’ applications, into compliant, non-compliant, and outrageous.
Compliant applications
Let’s say that an application is lodged that the accompanying planning report claims is completely compliant: it satisfies the zoning; it fits the envelope control; landscape and water are designed by accredited professionals and the construction and materials meet the NCC.
If it is assessed as meeting the controls the application is NOT notified to anyone - the NIMBYs and NOTEs have nothing valid to object to. A large part of the vicious friction in the current process is avoided. The onus is on council officers, without councillor involvement, to process and approve it, in say 2 months max, or it is a deemed approval.
The incentive for architects and designers to meet the intent and letter of the strategic plan is immense. If the strategic plan is clear, the design and the assessment can be conducted transparently and quickly. And the huge load of dealing with nonsense objections is removed.
The insurance factor is that large penalties would apply if the built building was found to be non-compliant with the strategic plan, not just the approval, and it would have to be made compliant, no ifs or buts.
Non-compliant applications
Let’s say an application is lodged that has a number of non-compliances, by reason of awkward sites, unusual briefs, or the like. This process needs to be conducted solely and transparently by the professional council staff, required to report on the non-compliances with the strategic plan only - everything else is assumed to be satisfactory.
Council officers make decisions on whether it is notified for objections, and only where there are external issues. All subjective critique as to the application’s appropriateness to heritage or other concerns are just that: subjective and ignored. Applicants must respond to the reports and recommendations, but do NOT have to address the objections (as some cowardly councils try to get them to do).
Once reported, it is critical that the decision on approval or refusal be made independently of council staff and elected councillors, by a ‘planning panel’ or the like. And that person or panel must be truly independent. The recent experience in NSW is instructive.
Some years ago, the NSW Department of Planning, recognised that councillors are often inexperienced, have an amateur or unprofessional approach, or a conflict of interest. The department gave approval powers to planning panels of architects and planners.
At first it worked well; approvals were sensitively judged against the strategic plan. But as the panels’ appointment came up for renewal it was clear two issues had arisen.
Sadly, many panel members were both umpire and player. Whilst planning panel members often had a name for good design, they then seemed to make decisions based on that personal preference. And as the time got closer to their re-appointment (by council) the panel members made decisions much closer to the council’s positions. It seemed the panel did council's bidding so they could keep their sinecure.
The solution is to make the planning panels truly independent: only reputable and retired professionals can serve, or only in council areas in which they have no recent or present interest.
The closer they get to the status of an ‘appeal court’ the better their independence. But applicants should always have access to a higher decision maker, be it a court or appellant panel.
Outrageous applications
There will always be some applications that lie totally outside the strategic plan. maybe the plan didn’t envisage a possibility, maybe amalgamation of sites makes alternatives possible, or maybe there is just a great idea. This goes straight out of council to a state-based planning panel, who then conducts an assessment along the same lines as council staff do for non-compliant applications.
As there are great rewards possible for ‘outrageous applications’, there needs to be some counterbalancing downside for the time and resources taken for assessment.
No appeal to a higher panel upon refusal of an outrageous application should be possible if the state authority has transparent decision making.
Overhanging all these three pathways hangs the issue of heritage being used as a club to prevent development. That’s such a tangled issue it deserves a separate column next week.
Reference: Tone on Tuesday 171: Ideas for better council approval processes. Published 18 July (week 29) 2023
Tone Wheeler is an architect / the views expressed are his.
Short pieces are published every Friday in A&D Another Thing.
Longer columns are Tone on Tuesday, published then.
You can contact TW at [email protected]
