All up this meant about 730 pages of policy documents – or “730 pages that don’t really help you know if your DA has any chance of success,” the developer wrote. “730 pages that do very little to guide and facilitate desired or good quality outcomes”. The paper found these local strategies and policies were also often outdated, ambiguous and inconsistent. Many had numerous specialist zonings that served no real purpose. Developers and residents, whether proposing or opposing a development, also had to deal with a mess of agencies and it was unclear how to navigate through them or know where the buck stopped. It said the WA planning framework follows a seemingly logical hierarchy: state planning strategies and policies, region schemes, local planning strategies and town planning schemes. At the pointy end, these local planning schemes are the legal mechanisms that make developers adhere to all the strategies above that theoretically feed into them. But while the hierarchy looks logical, Mr Jones said state policies couldn’t be traced through to town planning schemes, and couldn’t be directly implemented – users had no “clear line of sight”.

The state has maintained the position that councils have let planning schemes get decades out of date and are now paying the price, while industry groups have blamed councils and residents for poor performance on development assessment and what they call NIMBYism. Mr Jones’ paper touched on it all, saying the WAPC’s Perth and Peel @ 3.5million plan set infill housing targets without explaining methodology, where to place housing, or how to balance infill and character protection. “Its importance is in the context of upholding the principle of fairness for local residents. Strategic planning may show an area requiring higher density dwellings, changing the character of the area, and another may be left alone as a single family residential area,” he said. “How a local government is to make these choices is among the most important of all planning issues but has been given little attention in Western Australia.” He also recommended developers being allowed to create structure plans for urban infill areas, even over land owned by others, be re-examined.

“Developer-led structure plans were intended for greenfields,” the document says. “There is contention that developers should not be able to apply to propose changes to planning controls for land outside of their control.” He said the system needed to deliver key infill locations while recognising at least half of WA’s new housing would still, inevitably, be ‘greenfield’. The state also needed to coordinate the difficult and expensive processes of delivering infrastructure to go with new housing development. Mr Jones’ paper also dealt with public perceptions of lack of transparency and conflict of interest in Development Assessment Panels, which have largely placed the power to approve most costly developments in Perth into the hands of industry professionals, not councils.

In cases where the DAP panels have given approvals, angry locals have formed action groups labelled them pro-developer, leading to the nickname “development approval panel” and the "scrap the DAP" campaign. When DAPs have gone with conservative interpretations of local planning schemes to safeguard resident amenity, developers have resisted, appealing to the State Administrative Tribunal, which mediates then sends the matters back to the DAPs in a sort of expensive, time-consuming merry-go-round. Councils and residents have not had SAT appeal rights, so only those councils and residents who can afford to launch Supreme Court appeals have been able to fight decisions they disagree with. Mr Jones’ paper has recommended measures to improve transparency of DAPs and the WAPC, and allow residents and councils to be heard during SAT mediations. Perthians want to get their city right

The public comments period draws to a close as WAtoday collates results of a survey confirming readers are worried about Perth’s “planning for infill while caring for the environment”. When inner city residents were asked to rate the inner city’s performance on this issue, 47.5 per cent rated it as either “dire” or “needing improvement” and only 19.7 per cent as “good” or “exceptional”. The net approval rate (number of supporters minus number of detractors) was -27.6 per cent. When suburbanites were asked to rate the suburbs, 47.7% rated them as either “dire” or “needing improvement” and only 21 per cent as “good” or “exceptional”. The net approval rate was -26.7 per cent. Green Paper proposals include: LEGIBILITY

Consolidate state planning policies into one framework, with clear implementation steps

Use these directly to create local planning documents, so users can trace these principles through the hierarchy.

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage create online portal to collate local government planning strategies and schemes, with standardised zonings TRANSPARENCY Engage communities in creation of strategic plans, not just ask for feedback on drafts already made

DAPs to publish reasons for decisions

DAPs to meet at regular times, outside of business hours so community can participate

DAPs hold longer meetings with longer deputation times for all to have a say, if a proposal includes substantial variation to the planning scheme

DAP meetings to be recorded for the use of the public

DAPs to meet at regular times, outside business hours so community can take part

SAT consider allowing third parties, for example, councils or residents, to make a submission or be heard during mediation between DAP and developers.

Readvertise a proposal going before the DAP, if it is one that has come from a SAT mediation

Councils to have reporting system on planning matters and performance for monitoring and improvement purposes

WAPC to publish agendas, reports and recommendations not currently publicly available EFFICIENCY Reduce WAPC to 5-7 specialist members

Let WAPC create and abolish its own committees

Let WAPC delegate decisions on basic subdivision proposals to local governments

WAPC refocus on strategic planning alongside local governments

DPLH take over advising the Minister on planning system operation

Councils reply within 10 business days if WAPC requests further information on proposals

Approved structure plans to have same force and effect as local planning schemes

Single house applications requiring only minor R-Codes revisions to get 30-day fast-track