WILLY-NILLY TOWN PLANNING

It was just one street away. The sign had gone up: the proposal that had been submitted for planning approval was described briefly in planning terms as a scheme to build three houses on one block: for more details go to the Council website. Gosh, three! Might one object to this? - submissions close 30 April 2019. One was in two minds: “What’s the point,” was the first response; then the next idea; “ONE MUST!” - but why when one knows the history of such matters? It was decided that the time would be better spent penning this piece.

Not too long ago, just up the road, another block had advertised a project to construct two separate houses on the one block. One did respond to this, pointing out that such developments were not believed to be in the published Town Plan for the area, and that one had an expectation that the Plan for the region might be properly enforced, as a precedent can easily be created: could everyone in the area get a second or third house on the one block approved? Why not? The project was approved with no explanation: no one appeared to be worried about the trend. The houses are now under construction. It was this seemingly brash carelessness with developments that made the mind up: it would be a complete waste of time to object to the three-house project; it has probably already been approved – this is Gold Coast planning! . . . and the precedent has been established. The prediction is that we will only see more of this type of project: an increase in both the number of applications, and the number of houses per block. As with heights, quantity only grows exponentially.

One knows that the developer would have had meetings to discuss the project with the planners who might even have suggested a particular planning firm, (of mates?), to use to ensure that the ‘appropriate’ approach is spelled out in the application to make it easy to approve. It seems that some firms are more canny than others. Once the development submission has been made, if there are any objections, then the approving planner can simply create a few ‘countering’ conditions to ensure that the project goes ahead – all “in accordance with the Town Plan,” when it is perhaps not strictly so; it depends on how one reads or interprets the plan. Clever, vague phrases are coined as special conditions: to the engineer’s approval, and the like, oversight and restrictions that seem to say nothing other than whatever it takes. These are the processes that thwart the very best efforts to get the Plan enforced – alas, protests prove to be futile, such is the power of the planner!

Now one might hear the cry, “You are too cynical,” but this is not so. History has shown how the Gold Coast Council planners can be manipulative. It is not only the snide creation of ‘countering’ conditions that one is concerned about, or the suggested methods to ensure approval, but also the ‘positive’ supporting submissions that might have been generated, prompted perhaps, by the local Councillor, that are given standing, an importance that allows them to be used to dismiss the negative objections – tit-for-tat. Ten of one wipes out ten of the other, as if any issues raised were meaningless; the rest of the ‘uncountered’ objections, if any, form the basis for special conditions, as if this was a game where scores are kept and manipulated to fabricate the outcome: win/lose - winner! ‘Scores’ are indeed kept, or so it appears, but these have more to do with Council not forgetting who it was that caused the ‘difficulty.’

So why might one even get angry about Town Plans being ignored or shrewdly manipulated when this flippant high jinks goes on? It truly is a waste of time to write an objection, even though it might be based on solid evidence and seek to promote a rigorous strategy for planning enforcement: but still one can hear the cynic's cries. No, one does have one’s feet well planted on the ground. On the Gold Coast there have been applications that have openly listed the approving planner as a consultant planner or adviser for the submission, as if this might not be a problem! How could this be possible? - but it has happened. So it is obvious why one is reluctant to yet again spend time and hopefully submit a considered,  written objection to a proposal that should perhaps never even have been contemplated given the intent of the Town Plan for a region.

Plans need rigour in both their application and their enforcement, so that developers would know that certain submissions should never ever be considered: but it is not working like this. Plans are written and interpreted as general, broad guidelines only; almost as a series of suggestions; a set of broad, schematic indicators ready for the details to be filled in only when the applications appear. Developers can chat with Council and negotiate outcomes that identify what will be approved prior to any public advertising. Indeed, it has been seen that Council officers, (Brisbane City Council), have already reviewed and commented upon the application in specific detail prior to any public notification, as if Council might be colluding, ensuring that the project can be cleared to go ahead promptly? When challenged about this apparent duplicity, Gold Coast Council officers say that they get involved in order to improve the quality of the applications. Surely other professionals are there to provide quality services to developers? Why should Council be concerned about rejecting poor applications? Yet another group of planners, (BCC), said that they prefer to get involved so that schemes do not go to court where everything is left in the hands of the judge who might know nothing about planning and the issues involved.

This is Queensland, where Town Plans appear to be written as guides for negotiation. An area might have a height limit of three storeys defined in the Town Plan, but some clever developer/architect can apparently come in and persuade the Council to approve a seven story scheme plus a penthouse - that sounds like eight to me – all because of the ‘quality’ of the project, its self-proclaimed prestige, and a new public way, a lane beside the new eight levels: and this gets agreed to in spite of the neighbours’ objections and the Town Plan. The name of the game is ‘trade-offs’ - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2018/02/virginia-kerridge-seriality-of.html Why bother with any rules? Indeed, Gold Coast Council has proposed an open height limit – whatever one wants! It appears as though this strategy of no controls is bleeding into all aspects of planning, leaving one to suggest that the planning profession should be abolished. It would seem that the absence of planners would make little difference to the outcomes.

Back to the couple of blocks in the area that we started with, one can see the results of such a careless, lazy and uncommitted planning process where, perhaps, ‘mates’ seem to get what they want. Here, in this typical one house per block suburban residential  arrangement, one can now see two, (and soon three?), houses clustering on to the one block; various houses of sundry colours from white to ochre, to purple and black, in spite of the Local Area Plan; houses with converted flats; sites with multiple flats on them; sites with separate granny flats in the backyard; a pie shop on a corner; an aged people’s home nearby; a police station around the corner; a four story apartment building; a three story child care centre; a single-story medical centre; a Guides Hall; . . . and this has all been a ‘planned’ area? One looks at the towns and villages of old and drools at the cohesive mix of expression that embodies a sense of place and spirit that enlivens diversity with coherence – or is it coherence with diversity? What we are ending up with is a completely meaningless shambles shaped by and for self-interest - whatever. We need much better.

We need plans that have plans, defined ideas and visions that are approached and applied with rigour and strict rules so that futures are known, anticipated, predicted, not the results of some casual, friendly, chatty negotiations that allow anything smart words can justify. This is not planning; it is scheming; playing with semantics and people’s lives. Who knows what who is gaining out of these games? Who knows what who is losing out of the process of making place like this?

Are these Plans are the result of some false idea of fair play for all – of natural justice? They are meaningless documents that should not exist. At present they seem to come into being just because the State Government demands that such documents are prepared. It is a shame that no one appears to care about visions and enforcement. Our towns and cities are getting misshaped, deformed by lazy carelessness and rampant greed.

One might ask: why worry about multiple dwellings? Well, there is a case nearby where a colleague wanted an extension. As a part of this approval, a document had to be signed to ensure that the extension was never going to be used as a flat, or separate apartment! This is why: planners can be pedantic when they choose, bitchy, but generally sloppy otherwise, whenever and wherever they deem desirable; whatever suits them. Who cares if the extension might become a separate apartment when there are so many others around? This is not planning! So why object when any number of houses appears likely to be approved? This is willy-nilly dealing. Why worry, as MAD magazine used to proclaim?

Then there is the situation where Council has been told about serious, non-conforming issues in the nearby street, matters like fencing two metres off alignment into the public footpath zone; fences four metres high (maximum two metres); decks to the front boundary (setback of six metres specified); structures over 13 metres tall (max 9.5m); and the like, but no one cares: no one at all. Council merely says that everything has been ‘approved’! Why? The message is: “Go away; we’ll do what we want!”

 Yes, it seems it is willy-nilly planning. Little wonder that our world is fragmenting into a shambles of a chaos where serious mental health problems are on the rise. We lack that ringing support of enrichment in our lives that place can give. We need better than this mess if we are going to enhance our being, and our being here. Place is important, just as good planning is critical for quality outcomes.

One concern is that planning deals only with broad, notional diagrams, (just look at the illustrations here taken form a Google Images search 'Town Planning'). Planning cares little for real, complete, cohesive, interrelated outcomes. Details are almost irrelevant; indeed, they are considered a nuisance. Only the broad intent is actual as logic and descriptive language, never as experienced consequences. Planning does not concern itself with lives and living; just arrangements, diagrams and numbers that relate to a vaguely rational theory or someone's grand vision. The profession is given enormous power, but it carries little substance when it comes to meaningful existence: it lacks depth and rigour; care and concern. Yet the detailed outcomes are critical; these are what we live with everyday. Architects potentially make better planners than the trained specialists.

Christopher Alexander has grappled with the problem of quality - cohesive, and useful, meaningful planning outcomes - in his books, starting with A Pattern Language Towns. Buildings. Construction and finishing, to date, with The Nature of Order. These publications should be mandatory reading for planners. Alas, planners look only at dumb patterns, diagrams, profiles and numbers and ignore the personal messages. This approach is meaningful neither for life nor living; it will do nothing for these circumstances other than continue to frustrate. The situation is not at all useful in any way other than being manipulative: mind mangling matter - and this willy-nilly town planning process is shaping place for our lives.