AT A RECENT UDIA BREAKFAST, STUART DEVENISH, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING AT RPS OUTLINED HIS IDEAS ON HOW WE CAN IMPROVE THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN WA.
Stuart believes that there has to be a better way to bring land and housing to the market.
Over decades our planning processes have evolved in response to many and varied interests, all intended to serve honourable objectives. This has however, created layers of complexity, resulting in systemic inefficiency.
Time cost is not the only casualty of inefficiency. Innovative design solutions come with a time and cost risk which is incurred well before land is able to be released to the market. Designers often compromise, producing plans that will get through the system by meeting predictable responses from regulators rather taking the less worn path of innovation.
Stuart believes that innovation is not the only casualty; the current system limits the flexibility to respond quickly to market conditions.
There is also the human cost. Our regulatory agencies are under pressure. The land development industry is asking regulatory agencies with limited resources to turn out quality decisions faster. The combination of workload pressure and frustration for the agency staff who want to see improvement can contribute to reduced organisational performance, reduced motivation and increased staff turnover.
While inefficiencies add cost, discourage creativity and create stress, streamlining can reduce costs, stimulate innovation and enable an increased focus on appropriate planning considerations through the land planning process.
Stuart argues we can do things differently; that it is possible to re-cast processes to reduce timeframes and minimise risk expenditure before project certainty is achieved. This can be done by eliminating process steps that add no real value, but add to the cost of land supply. Legislation can be amended to avoid unnecessary Scheme amendments, and re-defining the scope of structure and subdivision plans to avoid duplication and reduce the number of decisions required. This can be achieved without compromising environmental assessments, stakeholder engagements and the many other considerations that factor into the land development process.
The State Government has recently confirmed its commitment to simplify and streamline the current residential building and planning approvals processes. It is also vital that any new initiatives are assessed to determine if they add genuine value to the system by creating improvements in housing affordability and quality of life.
Unfortunately, like all change processes, there is a long way from conception to implementation but we have to start somewhere.