MOST PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT THE COST OF INTEREST ON A LOAN CAN BE MORE THAN THE COST OF WHAT YOU PURCHASED, DEPENDING UPON THE INTEREST RATE AND THE DURATION OF THE LOAN. IN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, THESE “HOLDING COSTS” CAN BE CRIPPLING IF THE PROCESS TAKES LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED.
In the Phase Two of the State Government’s planning reform process, the time taken to get through the approvals system is high up on the agenda. Historically development approval processes occurred sequentially; starting with getting an amendment to the high level region scheme, through to amendment of the local planning scheme, structure planning approval then the detailed subdivision approval. This can be a very long process.
The initial government reform package released in 2009 led to the opportunity for concurrent amendment of region planning schemes and local planning schemes for land rezoned to urban. In the “Phase Two” report the emphasis on removing unnecessary delays is continued.
One of the time consuming parts of development is the process of amending Region Planning Schemes as it involves 15 steps under Division 3 of the Planning and Development Act. A shorter process under Division 4 of the Act can be used if, in the opinion of the Western Australian Planning Commission, the proposal doesn’t substantially alter the scheme. It is proposed to reverse the priority to make the shorter process the default position under the Act. This is a sensible approach.
Consideration is also being given to shortening the timeframes for advertising the amendment in recognition that many submissions are made online. This could also lead to time savings.
The third proposal is in relation to referral of the amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Not every proposed amendment impacts on the environment and the mandated referral creates work for the EPA and delays in the process. Changing the status quo would require formal agreement and potentially amendment to the regulations to make it clear the classes of development that do and don’t need to be referred.
Like all reform processes the devil is in the detail. Industry feedback has been that the criteria for any of the proposed changes must be clearly articulated or the debate with the relevant authority could eat up any time savings that were created. Of course if everything is very tightly locked in industry will be challenged by the lack of flexibility, and there lies the conundrum for everybody involved in policy reform.