voussoirs: WHY HAVE PLANNERS?

For years the personal cry has been for the planning profession to be abolished if it cannot reform itself. The world has more planners than ever before in the history of time, but cities, towns, villages, and the countryside are getting into a total mess; a true, uncontrolled shambles of whatever, wherever, all while being managed and supervised by our planners.

Now, for the first time, we see voices from the planning community crying out for change. Unfortunately it has not been rational argument and reasoned expositions that have stimulated this new approach, but the recent record floods in Queensland and New South Wales – some say one in a thousand years, such was their severity. Areas never before flooded were inundated. Experience in dealing with planners over the years when reviewing and objecting to development proposals, has highlighted the situation described in this article in The Guardian, headlined: Queensland floods raise questions about the ‘ethical obligation of planners’, industry figures say - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/20/queensland-floods-raise-questions-about-the-ethical-obligation-of-planners-industry-figures-say?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

At last, a call for ethical planning; it cannot come soon enough. For years, we have discovered the process for development applications to be:

developer generates an idea;
developer speaks to the approving Council through the planner or the local Councillor, who arranges a meeting with the three bodies – the developer; the approving planner; the Councillor – to discuss the best way to ‘go forward’ with the idea;
this discussion involves negotiations on the scope of the scheme and the available options, and the perceived ‘difficulties’ with the approval process;
the planner might even recommend a planning firm that would be of ‘assistance’ in the preparation of the formal planning application; we have seen cases where the approving planner becomes involved with the recommended planning firm as a consultant;
once there has been agreement between the three parties on the scheme and the approval strategy that may involve various trade-offs and silent nods as the project is developed in detail, the scheme is then ‘informally’ approved, with internal Council approval processes set in motion to ensure there is no delay in issuing the formal approval;
after this private activity, the project is advertised for community assessment and comment, that may involve objections;
in this public consultation period, we have seen the approving planner and the Councillor become involved in the community to ‘manage’ the response; this involves getting a feel for the community reaction to the proposal;
if there is a sense of strong objection to the scheme, the planner or Councillor will use community contacts to generate submissions that support the proposal;
the assessment of the application then becomes a mathematical game rather than any thorough review of the qualities or compliance of the submission, or the details in the objections: ‘x’ for; ‘y’ against – the ‘y’s have it, giving the ideal outcome that confirms the prior ‘informal’ approval – full speed ahead;
the argument for these prior approvals has been given to us by Council representatives as Council being useful, helpful, making sure that everybody’s time is not wasted by either party, with planners seeing their role as being facilitators as well as assessors, with the very last thing wanted is for a scheme to be rejected, with the developer taking Council to court: we have been told that Council would rather negotiate outcomes than leave the city burdened with a decision made by a judge who knows nothing about planning;
when the objections might outnumber those in favour, and in order to control matters of appeal even when those in favour ‘win,’ the planner sits down and goes through the objections in detail, and establishes a precise set of responses to these issues of concern that have been raised, so that they can be ‘annulled’ in the approval as special conditions to structure the required compliance, allowing the Council to argue that all the objections have been addressed, dismissed, or accommodated;
these unique conditions for a project can take various forms, with some responding specifically to the situation as required actions and/or defined numbers; but when matters get difficult, words like “To the engineer’s approval” are included so that the nod is postponed to a circumstance during construction, well after the project has started;
once all the approval conditions have done the job, and done away with all potential appeals – why bother when everything has been so carefully ‘managed’? - the developer presses on with the project doing whatever is wanted;
when the developer hits a hurdle, say, because it cannot accommodate a particular condition, or because more or different is wanted for the project, the Council reps and the developer get together and quietly modify the conditions of approval to suit the requirement or predicament, a process that does not have to go back to the public for review; it may be that these modified conditions directly contravene details of the formal plan;
even without changing conditions formally, the developer might brazenly press on doing what was always wanted, with the public becoming aware of the breaches only on completion; here Council simply takes steps to formalise the non-compliance as is needed to manage things, or simply ignores the situation, using time and the authority of the planner as the brick wall;
occasionally conditions that have been ignored might generate a response from Council that could seek to enforce the approval, but developers have options of appeal – e.g. natural justice - to ensure that their non-compliance is finally accepted; developers argue, maybe that it is totally unfair to impose such a financial burden on them, with final decisions being made by those who know nothing of the project or the plan: the other option is for Councils to just walk away, leaving things to be resolved by leaving them unresolved, blocked by the inertia of the planner’s power, and the process.

There is little wonder that the call for ethical planning has now been made. Planning has become adulterated. One of the very first calls that has to be made to allow for ethical decisions and processes, is for the plans themselves to be written far more clearly and precisely so that they do define a precise plan, a predetermined outcome, rather than merely stumbling around with muddled motherhood statements that allow for any negotiated compromise that might be desired or preferred. We have seen rules on setbacks in plans that say:

the setback shall be 1500mm;

the setback may be 1000mmm;

the setback can be as agreed with the approving officer;

or wording to that effect. Plans are riddled with such ambiguous language that facilitates negotiations and discussions to allow various outcomes never intended by anyone other than the developer. There are numerous built examples just in one nearby street that show what can happen even when even simple, basic rules only appear to be clear and enforceable, but are left open to some ‘flexibility,’ or the approving body’s carelessness. Decks go to front boundaries when setbacks are defined as 6 metres; fences are 4m high when the limit is 1.8 meters; building colours ignore the plan and include white, black, and purple, etc., when soft beige is defined as the requirement; fences are built out metres into the footpath to claim more land instead of defining the property boundary; building heights go to over 13 meters when the limit is 9.5meters; and more – and, when one points out the circumstances to Council, all of this is said to be ‘approved’: one is told to go away, “The rules are different now,” with a smug arrogance that defies any challenge and demands that one has to comply precisely with every rule that has been broken. Little wonder that one gets exasperated with planners.

We have been told that our seventeen-page objection, that had been delivered by hand and E-mailed to Council, had never been received by Council; and one can do nothing about this: we have been told that a 4 metre deep carport nearby has been formally approved by Council, even when it is clear that, with this dimension, most vehicles will have to protrude out into the footpath, as they do. No one cares; the only important matter is to make sure the complainant goes away. Nothing changes; no action is taken; but Council still feels it has the right to enforce the trimming of a few twigs that it claims are blocking the footpath opposite the undersized carport that ensures a footpath blockage will occur.

When a plan clearly defines three as the maximum number of storeys in a zone, and a seven storey building with a penthouse – eight storeys! – gets approved, there is a problem. This project involved protracted legal games, highlighting the fact that plans need strength and rigour to be enforceable. After all, a ‘plan,’ by definition, is supposed to define an achievable, measurable outcome. Without such a document, anything can be argued, and is. Trade-offs like public access are somehow measured against a few extra storeys that might be counter to public interest and the planning requirements, but the court seems to see things more materially. This is why plans need rigour. Plans that can be negotiated are simply not plans, but guidelines that allow for a shambles, an ad hoc clutter of developers’ ambitions.

One cannot be blamed for arguing that current planning practices are corrupt; perhaps one might say that they have been corrupted. The cry from one in the profession for ethical behavior is refreshing, but very late. The text is so important that it has been reproduced in full below. It is a true shame that this call has to be stimulated by historic floods. Good planning would never have allowed any development of the flood plains – and yet even this continues, complete with ‘scientific’ proof that it can be done successfully. Specialist advisors have a lot to answer for in the planning industry; it seems that there will always be some expert willing to swear to any outcome, at any time, as required by any developer.

One Council CEO was fired because he argued that flood plains should not be developed: one developer threatened to sue him. The same Council later approved the development of a flood plain with the astonishing condition that the project provide a boat to allow people to get out during floods, as well as having a stockpile of food and water to supply those who might get stranded. These astonishing conditions take the ‘approve anything subject to . . .’ to the extreme, highlighting the problem that exists with planning today when special conditions can overcome any problem: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2015/11/developing-flood-plains.html

Planning must take significant steps to be rigorous, rational, and thorough if it is even going to get close to being considered ethical. Without this, one can only again repeat the refrain that has been expressed for years: the planning profession must be abolished if it will not change; it seems that the world would be no worse off without it.

As for flooding, and solutions for building in these areas, one is now seeing solutions to accommodate the frequent inundations that are becoming silly: Queensland government proposes third wave of funding for flood victims worth three-quarters of a billion dollars

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-19/queensland-floods-funding-victims-houses-applications/100923718; while others are asking questions: Flooding across eastern Australia prompts property investors to ask 'pertinent' questions

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-12/flooding-prompts-new-investor-questions/100891930

There are many pertinent questions that come out of this mess, the basic one being: why have planners when we get the behaviour and outcomes like those that we have seen in the past?

THE ARTICLE

Queensland floods raise questions about the ‘ethical obligation of planners’, industry figures say

In the wake of the floods, some planners are advocating for a shakeup of the planning system

Brisbane suburbs inundated by flooding earlier this month. Planners say reform is needed to lower the risk of flooded residential areas. Photograph: Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images

Sally Dillon

Sun 20 Mar 2022 06.00 AEDT

Planners are calling for a shake-up of their industry and the planning system in the wake of the devastating floods across south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales.

As flood waters rose across Brisbane, Brent O'Neill, the director of design at Wolter Consulting, logged on to his computer and asked: "As development professionals, what is our responsibility to ensure we do not put people's lives and property at risk?

“I cannot help but reflect on the numerous times that as professional planners and engineers we continually push councils on the development footprint and boundaries, proposing engineered solutions to significant hydrological issues, ultimately rewarded by our developer clients when we achieve higher densities, or development in flood prone areas,” O’Neill wrote on LinkedIn.

O’Neill told the Guardian that the aftermath of the floods was an ideal time to question “the ethical obligation of planners and the development industry”.

“Ultimately, we’re there to represent community needs and values and if we’re not doing this, we need to do better,” he says.

The planner and academic Dr Laurel Johnson says the planning industry needs to return to its roots.

“The health of individuals and communities is at the heart of modern planning practice, which grew from a response to the dreadful health outcomes in post–Industrial Revolution European cities,” Johnson says. “But we’ve moved from that really clear mission of planning in the public interest to become facilitators and enablers of development.”

Johnson says the planning industry needs to “pause and recalibrate”, given the dire warnings contained in last month’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

The IPCC says unchecked climate change will dramatically increase the frequency of deadly flooding to several times a year and will cause sea levels rise to the point where, in some coastal areas, retreat is the only option.

Johnson says if her industry does not advocate for the public interest, communities will lose the chance to decide their future. “What’s happening now is that insurance companies are determining this because there are some areas where it’s not feasible to rebuild.”

Broader planning problems

O’Neill and Johnson say the planning issues that have manifested after the recent floods are reflective of broader problems within the system.

Johnson says the planning system is overly complex.

“There’s even a Planning Institute of Australia award called the Hard Won Victory, as if beating the planning system is to be awarded,” she says.

O’Neill says while the adversarial system could “produce excellent innovation, we do have to be cautious if that it is creating bad outcomes”.

“An example is where you have two technical arguments, where one says the site will flood, and another says it won’t. We end up with two experts arguing about flood modelling, which might not produce an ideal outcome.”

He says Brisbane city council planning rules introduced after the 2011 floods required development applicants to provide technical reports to show their proposed project won’t flood.

However, O’Neill says Queensland’s performance-based Planning Act means developments on flood-prone sites can still be approved with some risk.

The Brisbane councillor Jonathan Sri says the significant impact of the floods on his neighbourhood shows the system is flawed.

“Since 2011 developers have been saying, ‘We know what we are doing: we’ve got a good flood-management plan, we’ve designed according to the flood levels, trust us, it will be fine’.

“It turns out they were completely wrong in many cases.”

Building on flood plains

O’Neill says the increasing impact of climate change means decision-makers have a “moral and professional obligation to play a much stronger role in planning for change … to push back a bit” and to “pause and ask if we’re doing the right thing”.

However, he says state and local governments need to rethink laws around building on flood plains, as planners alone cannot be moral gatekeepers.

The Queensland deputy premier and planning minister, Steven Miles, said at a media conference this month he planned to talk to councils about how they could change their planning schemes to cope with the projections for more frequent and more severe natural disasters: “I have visited flooded areas … that, frankly, should not have been built upon.”

Miles said the government and councils needed to work together to “mitigate flooding risks ... but also ensure that going forward we’re not building new homes on locations that are prone to flooding .”

Sri says the impact of the floods on the low-lying suburb of Rocklea, where the city’s produce markets were inundated and a major garbage-truck depot was isolated by flood waters, shows council needs to rethink zoning laws .

“We’ve got impacts to power, to sewerage, to school facilities, to waste disposal, to the food supply chains,” he says.

Sri says governments have to take responsibility for the impact of the floods.

A Brisbane city council spokesperson says: “An independent review into Brisbane’s preparedness for floods is being undertaken by former governor Paul de Jersey. We will publish the report and respond to its recommendations once it is finalised.”

Sri says new rules need to look “at the cumulative impact of just how much development there has been, not just in low-lying flood areas but in areas higher on the hill”.

“We don’t just need to be talking about the amount of development within creek catchments and within creek flood plains, but we actually need to be talking about the amount of development up the hills where the proliferation of concrete and hard-stand surfaces means that water hits those sites and then runs straight down,” Sri says.

Buy back flood-prone land

Sri, Johnson and O’Neill agree governments need to buy back flood-prone land.

Sri says: “In suburbs such as Rocklea and Fairfield, the western side of West End, and the low-lying parts of Milton and Auchenflower, the government needs to offer optional buybacks to all residents in low-lying areas around creeks and the river and preserve that as green space or sports fields or other land uses that aren’t as severely affected by flooding.”

He says: “The government should also be compulsorily acquiring any sites in these areas where developers are proposing to develop new residential, industrial or commercial buildings.”

By promoting development on flood-prone land, O’Neill says governments are increasing the likely risks of flooding, ultimately placing the ongoing costs “back to the private sector, both owners and developers”.

He says it is time for the industry to engage with all levels of government to have a hard discussion about priorities.

“It’s about saying we’re a river city and we are facing a $1bn bill to rectify the recent damages.”

voussoirs

Wednesday, 23 March 2022

WHY HAVE PLANNERS?

No comments:

Post a Comment