HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:29): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning questions about development applications.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have recently spoken with developers and home buyers, amongst others, who have expressed concern about delays and problems in the development application process. Whilst I acknowledge that the minister has announced several important reforms in respect of the development application process, it has been the case for a number of years now that any qualified building surveyor can certify that a particular building project complies with the relevant building code for that proposal.

It has been suggested that exactly the same thing could occur with planning applications, saving enormous amounts of time, money and frustration. Indeed, it has been suggested to me that any qualified town planner should be permitted to certify that a development application complies with a particular local government development plan.

In light of the very long, unnecessary and expensive delays that currently exist in the planning approval process at local government level and, given the fact that currently any properly qualified building surveyor can lawfully certify that the proposed development complies with the relevant building codes, why should any appropriately qualified town planner not be able to certify that a given development application complies with the relevant local government development plan?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:30): I thank the honourable member for his important question. I think the question highlights that really two approvals are necessary if one wishes to build a residential dwelling. First, there is the planning approval—and in this state in 2006 we had about 63,000 or so of those planning applications—and also building approval is necessary, and that is where private certifiers can play a role in certifying that such things as footings and the like are in compliance with the building code.

In Victoria in that same year (2006-07) there were, I believe, fewer than 50,000 planning applications, in other words, about 13,000 fewer planning applications in the whole of Victoria than in South Australia for those 12 months. However, there were over 100,000 applications for building approval in Victoria. What this indicates—and this is the direction in which the planning review has suggested that this state should move under the new residential development code—is that if we can codify our planning approval it will greatly simplify our system and, as is the case with Victoria, far fewer approvals would be necessary so one would not even need the services of a planner at all, just the building approval.

We are doing this under the proposals of the planning review in several ways. From 1 January it is proposed that certain developments be exempt altogether from planning approval, and that would include such things as sailcloths up to a certain size, garden sheds, decking up to a certain height above the ground and pergolas and the like, so they would be exempt altogether from planning approval.

Incidentally, among some council areas there is great variety in what is exempt and what is not. So, one of the benefits of the planning code is that there will be uniformity across the state as to where planning approval is required and where it is not. At the moment that can vary dramatically from council area to council area; there has been great inconsistency in it. That is the first stage of the planning reforms.

With the second stage, beginning on 1 March next year, we hope to have the code in place that would remove the need for planning approval for developments that complied with the code in greenfield areas or areas that were not heritage or character areas. Then, from September next year it is proposed that variations to this code to take character into account would be implemented for those character areas. The current system of approval on merit would apply in relation to heritage areas.

So, the reforms that the government is proposing under the planning reforms would in effect remove the need for planning approval in many cases, but of course you would still have to get building approval—and appropriately so—for such things as the footings and other important structural issues.

The honourable member also referred to the question of building surveyors, and that comes back to the first question that the Leader of the Opposition asked today. There can be a role played by private building certifiers but, obviously, in its report the planning review recognised that, whereas there could be a greater role for private building surveyors to streamline the process, before that occurs it is important that a proper process of auditing be put in place. So, before we could move to that, the government would need to address the issues such as those we referred to in the first question today and also make sure that we had a proper audit in relation to the work of the building surveyors.

To sum up, with the implementation of the code by 1 March next year, and with the exempt approvals from 1 January next year, we believe it will greatly simplify the process of achieving building approvals. There are also a number of other important reforms in the planning review but, as far as development applications are concerned, it should greatly reduce the amount of time spent in the system in achieving development approval.

The planning review estimated that those savings in time alone could lead to anything up to $4 billion or $5 billion over five years. There are enormous savings to be had if we can reduce the amount of time in the system. If a resident owns a block of land and they have to wait six to 12 months and they are renting a property, one can soon see how the cost of delays can add up for consumers and developers in relation to the cost of housing. It is important to keep housing affordable, to best use planners on issues that are most important to them. The code has a great deal to offer.

Some seek to oppose the code on the basis that they claim it will threaten the character of some of our suburbs. I reject that accusation. There are protections within the proposals for the government to ensure that character areas will, if anything, achieve better protection under the code than they have at present. It is an important issue and I look forward to the application of this code from 1 March next year and seeing those benefits that will come from this flow through to home owners.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT