Victoria's Planning Framework for Land Use and Development
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
The Victorian planning system provides the legislative and
administrative framework that regulates and manages the use and
development of land in the state. The Planning and Environment
Act 1987 (the Act) outlines a number of planning objectives
such as the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and
development of land.
Planning schemes and planning permits are the major legislative
mechanisms for controlling land use and development. Planning
schemes are statutory documents that set out objectives, policies
and provisions for the use and development of land in the area to
which they apply (usually a municipality). Where a planning scheme
requires it, a planning permit must be obtained to use or develop
land for certain purposes. The Act and Regulations establish the
timeframes and procedures to be followed in processing planning
permit applications and amending planning schemes.
Under the Act, a planning authority is responsible for
developing and amending a planning scheme, and for giving direction
on how broader state planning policies will be implemented in the
local context. A responsible authority administers the
local planning scheme by processing and enforcing planning permits,
and in achieving consistency with the planning scheme. These roles
are performed by local councils in most cases.
The Minister for Planning has overall responsibility for the
state’s planning legislation and framework, and is both a planning
and responsible authority for a number of designated areas
throughout Victoria. The minister also authorises and approves
amendments to planning schemes and reviews proposed developments
that have state-wide policy implications.
The Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD)
manages the regulatory framework for land use planning, environment
assessment and subdivisions of land. It also provides advice on
planning policy, information on land use and development and
administrative support to the minister.
Councils manage the day-to-day administration of local planning
schemes through processing applications for planning permits and
ensuring consistency with planning schemes. They also develop
planning schemes and amend them as needed to reflect changes to
policy or local circumstances. State-wide, there were around 49 600
planning permit applications lodged in 2006–07.
Victoria’s planning system has been subject to continuous reform
since the early 1990s. As part of these reforms, the Act was
amended in 1996 to introduce the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP)
and establish new format planning schemes with a strategic and
performance-driven focus to reduce administrative costs and
increase efficiency of the planning system.
The VPP is a state-wide reference and statutory device used to
construct planning schemes. It ensures that consistent provisions
for controlling land use and development are maintained across
Victoria, and that the structure and format of all planning schemes
is the same. The Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of
Planning Schemes
requires that a planning scheme must include the following parts of
the VPP:
- the State Planning Policy Framework, which
details the state’s policies for key land use and development
activities
- the Local Planning Policy Framework
consisting of a Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning
Policies, which establish the local strategic policy context for a
municipality and how broader state policies will be achieved in the
local context
- key zones, overlays and other provisions that
are relevant to giving effect to state and local policy frameworks
chosen as needed from the VPP.
Following the introduction of the VPP, the new format planning
schemes were progressively implemented across the state and were
largely in place by 2000. The latest reforms (Better Decisions
Faster 2002–05 and Cutting red tape in planning 2006)
have focused on opportunities to further improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of planning processes. In early 2007 an expert
working group was established in response to Action 10.2 of the
Cutting red tape in planning report. The working group’s
Making local policy stronger report included five
recommendations that have been accepted by the government.
The February 2008 Annual Statement
of Government Intentions foreshadowed the review of the
Planning and Environment Act 1987. It is anticipated the
new Act will be presented to Parliament in 2009.
The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness,
economy and efficiency of Victoria’s planning framework for land
use and development at the whole-of-state and local levels.
The audit examined whether:
- at the whole-of-state
level:
- the key elements of planning schemes are clear
and assist robust and consistent decision-making
- adequate arrangements are
in place to measure and report the performance of the state’s
planning framework.
- at the local council level:
- the requisite policies and procedures are in
place, including adequate quality-assurance arrangements to align
council-level decisions with the Planning and Environment Act 1987,
the State Planning Policy Framework and their own planning
schemes
- the processing of planning permit applications
and planning scheme amendments complies with the Act and with their
own planning schemes.
The audit examined the policies, procedures and activities of
DPCD, Maribyrnong City Council, City of Boroondara, City of Casey,
City of Greater Shepparton, Bass Coast Shire Council and Pyrenees
Shire Council.
The audit scope did not extend to assessing the adequacy of
specific planning decisions or the related activities of the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
While the
results at the local government level relate directly to the
councils we examined, the issues revealed are considered indicative
of practices in other councils. In this context, the associated
findings should be considered by all councils administering
planning functions.
1.2 Findings
In line with the objectives of the audit, the findings are
outlined below in terms of the:
- clarity and robustness of key elements of
planning schemes
- adequacy of performance measurement and
reporting arrangements
- level of council compliance with the Act and
planning schemes, and adequacy of associated quality assurance
arrangements.
1.2.1 Clarity and robustness of planning schemes
The major findings from the audit’s examination of planning
schemes were:
- The intended purpose and relationships between
the key VPP components of planning schemes are transparent, logical
and consistent with the objectives of the planning framework
established under the Act.
- The underlying architecture of the VPP framework
is sound, however, a number of challenges and issues associated
with its implementation have emerged which are impeding the
effective and efficient operation of planning schemes.
- Some elements of the new format planning schemes
have become overly complex, are unclear and are not adequately
achieving their original intent as established under the VPP (as
identified by a ministerial working group) and need to be
addressed.
- A series of actions designed to address these
challenges and improve the operation of planning schemes have
recently been established.
1.2.2 Adequacy of performance measurement and
reporting
The major findings from audit’s assessment of the adequacy of
arrangements in place for measuring and reporting on the
performance of the state’s planning system were:
- Existing arrangements within DPCD do not allow
for comprehensive measurement and monitoring of the overall
performance of the planning system.
- DPCD should further develop these arrangements
supported by a structured program of stakeholder engagement.
- Performance measurement arrangements have not
been developed to assess the impact of changes to the legislative
and regulatory framework designed to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of statutory processes. Consequently, it is unclear
whether these changes have achieved their intended goals.
- DPCD has facilitated a number of targeted
reviews of the VPP to improve their operation and achieve better
planning outcomes in response both to wider government policy
developments and to issues raised by stakeholders. However, these
reviews have not been undertaken as part of an ongoing program of
continuous review.
- DPCD has developed products, such as codes of
practice, to assist councils in discharging their statutory
obligations. Our assessment of a selection of these products is
that they are of a high standard. However, based on our audit of
councils, these products are under-promoted and underutilised.
- There are no performance standards in place for
DPCD regions to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of
advisory and statutory support services primarily provided to
councils.
- Timeliness targets for the authorisation and
assessment of planning scheme amendments are in place, however, the
calculation of actual performance against the targets does not
measure the total elapsed time to make a decision.
1.2.3 Compliance with the Act and planning schemes and
adequacy of quality assurance
The major findings from the audit of selected councils in
relation to the planning scheme amendments were:
- Amendments are often complex but the time taken
to complete individual steps in the amendment process was excessive
in some cases. The average time from initiation to publishing a
notice of approval of the amendment in the Victorian Government
Gazette across councils was nearly 22 months.
- Councils generally complied with the Act in
considering amendment requests.
- Reports to councils should be more rigorous and
transparent in terms of the justification for the amendment at the
early consideration stage.
- Councils generally complied with the Act in
relation to the administration of notification procedures for
parties considered to be materially affected by the amendment.
However, the basis upon which councils decided to notify these
parties was neither transparent nor adequately documented.
- Assessments following exhibition of an amendment
and decisions made by councils on how to proceed (i.e. adopt,
modify or abandon an amendment) were sound in most cases. Council
officer reports, however, did not include a thorough analysis of
issues to assist consideration by councillors of the appropriate
course of action to be taken.
- Councils generally complied with the Act in
their use and administration of panel processes although some
councils need to pay greater attention to meeting the 28-day
statutory timeframe for the public release of panel reports.
- Councils complied with the Act in the adoption
and submission of amendments to the minister in the vast majority
of cases. However, poor file management in some councils meant they
were unable to demonstrate whether there was full compliance in all
cases.
- Fee collection was satisfactory in most
cases however, some councils failed to record or collect all
fees.
The major findings arising from the audit of selected councils
in relation to planning permit applications were:
- The average statutory time taken to process
applications across councils was 58 days and within the prescribed
timeframe of 60 days.
- The total elapsed time to process applications,
which is affected by events not required to be accounted for in the
prescribed timeframe, was significantly higher in most cases (86
days on average). There is scope for councils to improve the
efficiency of the process by developing strategies to reduce the
time taken to manage events within the control of councils.
- Details of pre-application meetings were not
systematically recorded. Consequently, it was difficult to
determine the extent to which these meetings had occurred and
whether they were effective in minimising delays.
- Councils did not adequately comply with the Act
when amendments were made to applications before a council
decision. In most cases, a new application form was not requested,
the prescribed time to process the application was not restarted
and the need to notify and refer the application to affected
parties was not re-assessed.
- Most councils complied with the Act and the
planning scheme in giving notice of an application where it was
considered that there was material detriment to parties affected by
the application. However, the rationale for decisions concerning
detriment was neither transparent nor adequately documented in most
cases.
- Councils appropriately forwarded applications to
referral authorities, and conditions requested by these authorities
were applied to permits by councils in accordance with the Act.
However councils breached the Act by failing to send copies of
decisions to referral authorities in most cases.
- In four of the six councils examined, the
assessments did not give sufficient consideration to the Act or
planning scheme. In 78 per cent of cases examined, officer reports
did not give adequate consideration to matters specified in the
Act, planning scheme or both.
- Considerable improvement in the quality
assurance provided by senior council planning staff over the
accuracy and processing of permit applications is required.
These findings require remedial action both at a local council
level and, due to their extent and significance, at the state-wide
level via a multi-pronged system-wide approach coordinated by DPCD
in partnership with local government and key stakeholder groups.
This approach should adopt the specific goal of raising the
standard of statutory planning in councils and therefore the
overall performance of Victoria’s planning system.
1.3 Recommendations
Measuring the performance of the state’s planning
framework
- DPCD should develop a comprehensive strategy
with detailed timelines for the further development and
implementation of the performance measurement framework
(Recommendation 4.3).
- DPCD should review and revise the existing
performance targets for the planning scheme amendment process so
that they accurately reflect the elapsed time for decisions to be
made on authorisations and approvals (Recommendation
4.4).
Council management of the planning scheme amendment
process
Timeliness
Consideration of amendment requests
- Councils should make certain that they perform a
comprehensive initial assessment of the amendment against all the
requirements of Section 12 of the Act, and that this is clearly
documented in reports to council (Recommendation
5.2).
- standard templates are used for reporting to
council on proposed amendments so that adequate consideration is
given to all relevant matters under Section 12 of the Act
- records of all meetings/discussions with
proponents and DPCD are appropriately documented so that an
accurate history of the amendment is maintained and action items
are addressed by all participants (Recommendation
5.3).
Notification
- DPCD, in consultation with councils, should
develop a clear definition of the term ‘materially affected’,
including guidelines for making determinations to facilitate
consistency across councils (Recommendation 5.4).
- assessments of who is materially affected have
been adequately undertaken, and appropriately documented
- all parties that have made submissions are
appropriately noted and considered (Recommendation
5.5).
Assessment following exhibition
- DPCD, in consultation with councils, should
develop a standard report template so that the requirements of the
Act, issues raised by submitters, and relevant planning scheme
provisions are consistently and comprehensively discussed in
council officer reports when assessing amendments following public
exhibition (Recommendation 5.6).
- DPCD should assist councils to develop and
implement procedures to require targeted, risk-based peer reviews
of officer reports against defined standards before transmission to
council, to provide assurance that all relevant matters have been
included and comprehensively addressed, and that evidence of this
is documented (Recommendation 5.7).
Panel hearings
Adoption and submission to minister
- Councils should review their quality
assurance arrangements to put in place appropriate measures whereby
requirements arising from the adoption, submission to, and approval
of amendments by the minister are properly addressed by council and
that evidence of this is retained (Recommendation
5.9).
Fees
- Councils should ensure that:
- all relevant staff are
made aware of the fee provisions within the Act and
Regulations
- proponents (where
relevant) are clearly identified at the outset, and processes
initiated to identify and collect relevant fees
- effective controls are
put in place for the timely invoicing and payment of relevant fees
for key stages in the amendment process
- appropriate procedures
are put in place to facilitate prompt follow-up of outstanding
payments
- records and receipts
of all payments received are accurately maintained on file
(Recommendation 5.10).
Council management of the planning permit
process
Pre-application meetings
- Councils should review the adequacy of their
pre-application procedures, and establish arrangements for
systematically recording and documenting on file:
- whether a pre-application meeting was conducted
in respect of an individual application
- the details as well as key actions arising from
pre-application meetings with applicants (Recommendation
6.1).
Lodgement
- Councils
should ensure that:
- records for all key events associated with an
application are accurately kept and recorded in the register
- all requests for further information are carried
out in accordance with the requirements of the Act, and that lapse
dates are enforced
- neighbourhood and site descriptions are provided
where required and assessed by council to determine whether they
meet the requirements of the planning scheme
- the register of applications is maintained
accurately in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 2 of the
Regulations (Recommendation 6.2).
- Councils
should review and, where necessary, strengthen their quality
assurance processes so that::
- applications submitted at
lodgement are accurate and complete
- all documents and plans are
appropriately date-stamped and recorded on file
- thorough preliminary
assessments are conducted, checklists completed, and the outcomes
communicated effectively to planners and recorded on
file
- further information
requests are issued promptly, and addressed prior to giving notice
(Recommendation 6.3).
Amendments before decision
- Councils should:
- implement targeted training for staff to improve
their understanding of the requirements associated with Sections
50, 50A and 57A of the Act
- review and, where necessary, revise their
quality assurance processes so that amendments to applications made
before decision are reviewed for compliance with the Act and
planning scheme (Recommendation 6.4).
Notification
- to facilitate consistency across councils DPCD,
in consultation with councils, should identify the factors to be
taken into account when assessing material detriment and develop
guidelines for making such determinations (Recommendation
6.5).
- assessments of material detriment have been
adequately undertaken, and appropriately documented
- notification decisions are made at the
appropriate stage of the process, and are informed by a properly
documented site inspection
- notification decisions comply with the Act and
the planning scheme
- applicants have complied with their obligations
(where relevant) in relation to the placement and maintenance of
site notices (Recommendation 6.6).
Referral authorities
- Councils
should:
- implement training for staff to improve their
understanding of the planning scheme provisions for referral
- establish appropriate quality assurance
procedures to make certain that applications are referred correctly
and that copies of decisions are always forwarded to relevant
referral authorities
- review their internal referral processes and
establish clear policies, procedures and standards to enable them
to be carried out in a timely fashion (Recommendation
6.7).
Assessment
- Councils should review their internal assessment
processes and make certain that staff have adequate knowledge to
identify and consider all the relevant matters under the Act and
planning scheme applicable to different types of applications
(Recommendation 6.8).
- When assessing
applications, councils should make certain that proper
consideration is documented and given to all relevant:
- matters under Section 60 of the Act
- zone, overlay and other controls
- permit triggers
- state and local policy provisions
(Recommendation 6.9).
- Councils should review
their quality assurance procedures to make certain that:
- appropriate report
templates, incorporating guidelines and criteria for assessment,
are developed and properly used by planning staff
- oversight mechanisms are
appropriate for providing a reasonable level of assurance that
sufficient consideration is given to all relevant matters under the
Act and planning scheme by assessing officers, and that this is
properly documented and transparent to all parties
(Recommendation 6.10).
State-wide approach to improving statutory planning in
councils
RESPONSE provided by the
Secretary, Department of Planning and Community
Development
It is pleasing that a key finding of
the report is that the underlying architecture of Victoria’s
planning system is sound. I acknowledge that the Department of
Planning and Community Development has an important role to
oversight the operation and reform of the planning system. The
department has initiated a continuing program of initiatives in
this area and strongly supports a continuous improvement approach
to the management of Victoria’s planning system.
The department agrees in-principle with
the recommendations in the report and will work closely with the
local government sector and other key stakeholders to develop an
agreed framework for an improved performance measurement and
reporting regime as recommended in the report. The following broad
comments are provided in addition to the detailed response to the
recommendations that are included in parts 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this
report.
Measuring the performance of
the state’s planning system
The department is progressively developing new systems to
address these issues. In particular, state-wide planning permit
activity reporting is now operational and this is currently being
expanded to include reporting on the timeliness of permit
application decision-making and other matters.
Council management of the
planning scheme amendment process
The department is currently undertaking
an internal review of the amendment process to identify
opportunities to further streamline the process. This will provide
the opportunity to simplify and improve procedures and practices to
ensure efficiency and facilitate compliance with statutory
requirements. The findings of your report will provide valuable
input into this review.
Council management of the
planning permit process
As you acknowledge, Victoria has
maintained a long standing program of continuous improvement of the
planning system. While the local government sector will be
primarily responsible for giving effect to these recommendations,
the department will work co-operatively with the sector to achieve
the outcomes sought by the recommendations.
State-wide approach to
improve statutory planning in councils
The department will work with the local
government sector and the broader planning industry towards
improvement of overall standards in the industry. It is expected
that further implementation of ePlanning in accordance with the
ePlanning Roadmap will assist in this regard and will enable more
sophisticated performance measurement in the future.
As you would be aware the Premier announced a major review
of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in his annual statement of
government intentions in February. This review will provide further
opportunities to streamline and simplify planning processes and to
improve reporting and quality assurance opportunities. The
recommendations included in the report will be an important input
into this review.