Daily Bulletin

The Conversation

  • Written by Philippa England, Senior Lecturer, Griffith Law School, Griffith University

Recent changes in Queensland planning law continue the shift toward a more commercially oriented, business-friendly planning framework that relegates accountability and public access and influence to a minimum.

This stands in contrast to a 2015 government directions paper for planning reform that declared:

The planning system should be open, transparent and accountable to ensure that both the community and industry can have confidence in the decisions that are made.

When the then planning minister, Jackie Trad, introduced the Planning Act in 2016, she identified three reforms that supported transparency:

  • restoring a rule that each party to planning litigation will ordinarily pay their own costs (undoing an amendment by the previous Newman government)

  • introducing a requirement that councils give reasons for their decisions

  • extending the public consultation period for new planning schemes by ten days.

These reforms are laudable. But, when weighed against other trends entrenched in the law, they are relatively trivial.

The act, which took effect in mid-2017, makes development assessment an even more discretionary affair. It leaves community-based litigants with even less prospect of success in the Planning and Environment Court.

Councils given wide scope

In Queensland, assessable development is classed as either code assessable development (if it is generally consistent with the local planning scheme) or impact assessable development (if it is less compatible or the impacts may be more significant).

Code assessable development must be assessed primarily against the applicable planning scheme – that is, the publicly notified and formally developed planning agenda for the area.

Under the changes, the local council must approve any code-assessable development application that complies with the relevant planning scheme codes. The council can also approve any non-compliant application if non-compliance can be resolved by imposing development conditions.

This is reasonably logical. Code-assessable development is supposed to be generally consistent with the planning scheme goals. The public had the opportunity to comment on the scheme in its drafting.

However, the Planning Act also allows decision-makers to approve development applications that do not comply with some or all of the planning scheme codes whether or not conditions will directly and adequately substitute for that lack of compliance. This means councils may approve applications whether or not they comply and with or without whatever conditions they like.

With that much flexibility in the system, why bother writing codes at all? Wasn’t the existence of the codes why particular developments were identified as code-assessable in the first place? Do we still agree these types of development should escape public scrutiny (code-assessable development is not publicly advertised) if they can depart from any planning scheme code that supposedly applies to them?

Planning scheme no longer takes priority

Impact assessment has also become a more discretionary exercise under the Planning Act. Councils must now assess impact assessable development against the entirety of their planning schemes, including the overall strategic objectives. They may also have regard to “any other relevant matter”.

Under the old law, councils were obliged to ensure their decisions did not conflict with their planning scheme unless there were “sufficient grounds to justify the decision”. This gave priority to the planning scheme. By implication, a departure from its terms would be the exception, not the norm.

The new act contains no requirement to give priority to the planning scheme. Nor does it require that any departure be justified on “sufficient grounds”.

The planning scheme ranks equally with “any other relevant matter” as a decision-making criterion. A “relevant matter” is not defined, except to state it does not include “a person’s personal circumstances, financial or otherwise”.

This change’s overall effect is that decision-makers are now expected to assess all aspects of development applications. They do so in the light of their planning instruments and any other relevant matters – including strategic economic considerations. They don’t need to attach any particular priority to the performance measures stated in their formal planning instruments.

Fewer grounds for review

Changes to the decision-making rules for impact assessable development will have a flow-on effect in the Planning and Environment Court.

In Queensland, the court holds a merits review power for such development. This means the court, on appeal, is empowered to make an entirely new decision in accordance with the applicable law and after considering the case’s facts.

However, the court generally respects a council’s decision unless that decision patently cut across an important planning strategy as expressed in its planning scheme or failed to properly consider another statutory decision-making criterion.

New Queensland planning law puts transparency and accountability at risk Councils’ wider discretion to approve developments leaves fewer grounds for overturning decisions on appeal. LittleRedDragon/Shutterstock

Under the changes, all decision-making criteria now rank equally. A council is free to decide there are relevant matters that justify it disregarding its planning scheme and provide a statement of its reasons. Because there is no longer any requirement to ensure those reasons sufficiently outweigh a primary requirement to comply with the planning scheme, the court is left with no criteria against which to test the council’s decision-making.

As the law now gives councils such wide discretion, they really cannot be held to account unless they follow incorrect statutory procedures or make a decision so “manifestly unreasonable” that no reasonable council could have made it.

Over to the public …

Together, these changes take discretionary decision-making to a new level of uncertainty. They undermine the certainty and accountability required of decision-makers when they apply planning schemes.

This raises questions about whether the Planning Act, despite laudable intentions, will – in practice – do more to compromise public participation, predictability, transparency and accountability than to advance it. The community will need to be vigilant to ensure this does not happen.

Authors: Philippa England, Senior Lecturer, Griffith Law School, Griffith University

Read more http://theconversation.com/new-queensland-planning-law-puts-transparency-and-accountability-at-risk-93121

Writers Wanted

Confused about which English subject to choose in year 11 and 12? Here's what you need to know


We've heard of R numbers and moving averages. But what are k numbers? And how do they explain COVID superspreading?


The Conversation


Prime Minister Scott Morrison's interview with Ray Hadley, 2GB

RAY HADLEY: Prime Minister, good morning to you.   PRIME MINISTER: G’day, Ray.   HADLEY: Gee, you’ve had a week.   PRIME MINISTER: Well, there's been a lot of weeks like this. This time last...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Ray Hadley's interview with Scott Morrison

RAY HADLEY: I'm going to go straight to the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison is on the line right now. Prime Minister, good morning to you.    PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, Ray.   HADLEY: Just d...

Ray Hadley - avatar Ray Hadley

Defence and Veterans suicide Royal Commission

Today the Government has formally established a Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide following approval by the Governor-General.   Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the Royal Commi...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Business News

9 Smart Hacks for Your First Day at Work

No matter how much work experience you have, the first day with a new company can be very stressful. Even the biggest professionals find the change of location and work collective a little frighte...

Chloe Taylor - avatar Chloe Taylor

Record year of growth for Tweed based business The Electrical Co

While many businesses struggled to stay afloat during the COVID-19 affected 2021 financial year, Tweed Heads based The Electrical Co. completed more than 50,000 smart meter installations across Aust...

a contributor - avatar a contributor

The Most Common Reasons why Employees End Up Leaving a Company

It is important for businesses to make sure they find the right people for their open positions. That is why a lot of companies are relying on professional outplacement services. A lot of companie...

NewsServices.com - avatar NewsServices.com