E50. What is Planning and why do we need it? (with special guest Mick Purves) Part 1

We are excited to release our 50th episode of the Building Design, Prime Time podcast. We were thrilled to have Mick Purves from Town Planning Solutions be part of our 50th episode to talk about his work from behind the planning desk as a Town Planner.

Mick has over two decades of experience as a Town Planner. In this episode, Frank, Mick and Amelia discuss what planning is and why is required.  Mick also shares some insights into how planning has changed since the adoption of the Statewide Planning Scheme.

There are loads of hot topics of conversation in part 1 of this two part episode. Stay tuned for our next episode to hear part two of this very special podcast episode.

Be sure to subscribe so you can catch the latest in the building design and construction world. There is a new episode released each week.


About us
Prime Design is a building design company locally owned and operated in Tasmania since 2004.  Our goal is to share as much valuable information as possible about the process of building design, extensions, and more. We will talk about a different topic each week. To suggest a topic you would like us to talk about contact us at info@primedesigntas.com.au

Disclaimer
The information provided on this podcast is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, individual circumstances, or remedy. We strongly suggest you consult a qualified professional before taking any action based on the information provided in this podcast. The views, opinions, and information provided in this podcast are those of the hosts do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other agency, organisation, employer, or company. All content provided on this podcast is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind. We make no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this podcast and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, or damages arising from its use. We reserve the right to change content or delete any information provided on this podcast at any time without prior notice.

Transcript

E50. What is Planning and why do we need it with special guest Mick Purves (Part 1)

[INTRO] (0:08 - 0:24)

Hello and welcome to the Building Design, Prime Time Podcast, focused on providing valuable information for anyone looking to undertake a new build or extension project. We'll share our tips, tricks and stories from a building designers perspective.

[Amelia] (0:26 - 1:00)

Hello and welcome to the Building Design, Prime Time Podcast. I'm your host Amelia and once again we're joined by Frank Geskus. 

[Frank]

Hi Amelia. 

[Amelia]

How's it going?

[Frank]

It's great. It's our 50th podcast.

[Amelia]

I'm excited. We've made it to 50. 

[Frank]

I know. Who would have thought? 

[Amelia]

How are we still going? 

[Frank]

Oh well, good laughs, good times.

[Amelia]

So thank you to all the listeners out there. 

[Frank]

Yes, thank you for listening.

[Amelia] (1:00 - 1:01)

You've put up with us.

[Frank] (1:01 - 1:11)

Yes. 

[Amelia]

And I'm excited to announce a special guest today. Welcome to our 50th podcast, Mick from Town Planning Solutions. Welcome.

[Mick] (1:11 - 1:25)

Thank you and congratulations on turning 50 I suppose. 

[Frank]

How do I take that? 

[Amelia]

Some of us aren't 50 yet.

[Frank]

Yes, well I am so that's okay, will and truly. Yeah, the majority is over 50 so we'll take it as a good thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Amelia] (1:25 - 1:49)

I think my grey hairs are telling me otherwise. 

[Frank]

Can't see yours. 

[Amelia]

No, I cover them.

[Frank]

Yeah, well done.

[Amelia]

I cover them up. 

[Mick]

I gave up a long time ago.

[Amelia]

So we're going to talk about planning today. 

[Frank]

Yeah. I'm excited about this because at Prime Design we deal with this all day every day and we've done some work together previously quite a while ago.

[Mick] (1:49 - 2:12)

Yeah, when I was at West Tamar. So I'm a town planner. I have been for what, 20 plus years now? You've got plenty of practice. Yeah, lots of practice. Some of it's even right.

And I've worked in local government and now in my own consultancy and when I've got a different hat on I'm also the Tasmanian Division President for the Planning Institute of Australia. So I've been through this circus a few times when it comes to planning and DAs.

[Amelia] (2:12 - 2:21)

You must have some amazing stories of different things you've had to try and pass or I mean with all those years of experience you must have seen some absolute crackers.

[Mick] (2:22 - 2:25)

Yeah, crackers is a good way of putting it. It really is.

[Amelia] (2:25 - 2:27)

I'm sure Frank would have another way to put it.

[Frank] (2:28 - 2:55)

Good, bad, the ugly and what were you thinking? 

[Mick]

Yeah, that about sums it up. Probably the worst one we've seen was basically you know how the Opera House was a sketch on the back of a napkin?

[Frank]

I read the story. 

[Mick]

It wasn't the Opera House but it did involve a napkin and that was the whole application. 

[Amelia]

Oh, wow.

[Mick]

And the council staff were told off for not accepting it. 

[Frank]

Actually we're going to talk about that later because I got a bee in my bonnet with some of that stuff. 

[Mick]

Really? I never would have guessed.

[Amelia] (2:55 - 3:32)

No. I don't think I'm going to be able to stop you talking today to be honest. 

[Frank]

Oh, there'll be lots of questions and discussions about it because being on the opposite sides but also about a work through solutions because that's what it's about.

It's working through a solution within the rules that we've been given. That's it. And sometimes our customers don't understand that.

We have to explain it to them why there are these constraints on your site which you need to know early on rather than have a surprise. Sometimes when people buy a block and I'm talking residential mainly here they actually don't know what they're buying. They haven't done their research.

They haven't looked. What are the overlays? What are the restrictions of what you want to build on your property?

[Mick] (3:32 - 3:47)

And that's surprisingly common. The number of times you'd be working for council or even now that I work for myself people come in. They've bought the block of land. They've settled it and they can't build the house on it because they didn't check anything first. 

[Frank]

Yep. 

[Mick]

So that's surprisingly common. It's disappointing but consistent.

[Frank] (3:47 - 3:59)

And it's shattering. Absolutely shattering for them when they didn't know and they feel swindled and all the rest of it. But you've got to check.

Go to the council. Talk to a planner. Talk to a designer.

Talk to people who know how to find this information.

[Mick] (4:00 - 4:13)

And the first step is actually asking council. And the second one, if you'd been to talk to me when I was with council would have been to make a conditional offer. If you're dead set on the block and may really want a contract make it conditional on getting approval for what you want to do.

[Frank]

It's quite common, especially with developers.

[Mick] (4:14 - 4:31)

It is. 

[Frank]

There's good reason why they do that. 

[Mick]

Yes. It makes a lot of sense and removes a lot of the questions. 

[Frank]

Exactly. And takes that risk away.

[Mick]

Yes. 

[Frank]

So maybe you can explain to everyone in basic terms. Why do we need planning? Or even then, what is planning? Might be a better way because a lot of people don't understand it.

[Mick] (4:31 - 5:24)

So planning, most people understand when you build a house you're looking at how it fits on the block, whether you can get your number of bedrooms, your car parking, what it looks like, that kind of stuff. Planning takes a few steps up and basically it combines the outputs from a whole bunch of different professions, different types of engineers, economists, policy boffins in state government, development sector advocates and puts them together into a document that regulates how you actually get to build and live your life. So it really takes a step up from the individual house on an individual block and starts looking at the relationship of that dwelling and that site to what happens on the adjoining blocks of land, to the street, to the local town and some other inputs like the nature of the local economy, the closest shopping centre, what your recreation facilities are, those kinds of things.

So it really takes that bigger picture look.

[Frank] (5:24 - 5:29)

And when you put it like that, people wouldn't even think the effort that goes into putting these documents together.

[Mick] (5:29 - 5:38)

No, they wouldn't because it's hidden and most people have no idea it even goes on until they find out they can't do what they want. 

[Frank]

Because of a certain policy and there's a reason behind it.

[Mick] (5:38 - 5:39)

Yes.

[Frank](5:39 - 6:21)

Which is fair enough. So why do we need it? Well aside from the reasons that I've really just gone through, a lot of it really comes down to that relationship between the individual building and what happens on the adjoining sites and areas.

So to give you two examples, if you're looking at a subdivision, the big question is are the lots that are proposed…Because before you build your house, it has to be subdivided and zoned for residential development. So are those lots suitable for a house to be built on them and are there any risks that apply to either that specific site or that area?

In the north, most of us would be aware of the landslip issues that we have around some of our places. 

[Frank]

Especially up the Tamar Valley. 

[Mick]

Yes.

[Frank] (6:21 - 6:21)

Pretty special.

[Mick] (6:22 - 7:07)

And that's a really good example because a lot of those landslip issues are looked at, at the subdivision level or the rezoning. So they get to look at whether the site is suitable for the intended use, being a house. And when you go through a rezoning process, they get to examine the question of whether that can be managed across the overall slip or whether it's something that can be managed at the local level on an individual title.

So with a lot of landslip stuff, there's always a way to deal with an individual site because you can usually engineer your way out of anything. But if that site is effectively surfing its way down the hill into the river… 

[Frank]

Which we've seen.

[Mick] 
…which we have seen locally, yes, in not too distant past, then that can't really be managed at an individual site level.

[Frank] (7:07 - 7:07)

Yes.

[Frank] (7:08 - 7:13)

And that was devastating because they were lots that were subdivided decades ago.

[Mick] (7:13 - 7:13)

Yes.

[Frank] (7:13 - 7:31)

And there's still some out there. They're vacant. Oh, magnificent, waterfront and all the rest of it, and you cannot build on it.

[Mick]

Yes, exactly.

[Frank]

And the classic example we know, we had a client, they did buy it and tried to get it through and get it sorted, and council had to get peer review, spent tens of thousands of dollars on reports and basically got knocked back.

[Mick] (7:31 - 7:31)

Yeah.

[Frank] (7:31 - 7:45)

But they bought it and they got themselves caught. They didn't do it subject to planning. 

[Mick]

Exactly.

[Frank]

So that's a good takeaway, even before we get to takeaways, Amelia is like, everyone, if in doubt, go to the council, but also do it subject to planning approval of what you want.

[Mick] (7:45 - 7:56)

And that's the key phrase. It's got to be what you want. It's one thing to have a contract that says, you know, getting a house on it.

[Frank]

Yes. 

[Mick]

But if that's not the house that you want, then what good is it? 

[Frank] (7:57 - 8:46)

Oh, that's 100% right. And it's amazing some of the stuff we get people bring in, and they want to put something on such a site and, like, do you realise there's five metres fall, there's a big slope on it, it's not going to do what you want it to do. And people, they look at a site, they can't visualise it. It's our job to help visualise that for them, to see how it sits on that piece of land.

How does it affect the neighbour? How does it affect even just getting your vehicle into the site? Which is a surprisingly common problem.

Oh, I had one today. I saw a client just bought a new house, second-hand one, and he says, don't drive your car up there. He says, why is that?

You're going to lose your exhaust. What are you talking about? He said, just park on the road and we'll walk up and I'll show you.

And I fell over looking at this thing, just going, this is the most ridiculous thing. And it was prescribed by the Council Works. 

[Mick]

Oh, wow.

[Frank]

Yeah, anyway, that's a whole other issue. But no-one's perfect, but that was just extraordinarily stupid.

[Mick] (8:46 - 8:57)

Yeah, and unfortunately a lot of the common sense that goes into sorting those issues before you get to the application and permit stage doesn't always apply.

[Speaker 2] (8:57 - 9:27)

No, you're dead right. So discuss why we need planning, and I was going to say, yeah, we've already got building approvals, but that's a vastly different process because building approval is under the National Construction Code and all the relevant Australian standards. So, which planning is completely different because I have had plenty of clients, oh, I've already got Council approval.

No, you have planning approval. Now we go for building and plumbing approval. And over the years, I've had some absolutely interesting discussions with people trying to convince them, no, this is normal, you know.

[Mick] (9:28 - 9:52)

Yeah, look, it's interesting. We used to see that all the time when I was in local government as well, and getting people to understand what is involved with the processes is very hard because they've got this idea, they're absolutely wedded to it because it's one of their passions, and anything that comes in that either changes that or limits that or has a requirement about how they do it tends to be a negative experience for them.

[Frank] (9:52 - 10:02)

Or, as we've also had to do, fix-ups when, oh, I've got my Council permit, let's go build this thing, and they build it with only a planning permit.

[Mick] (10:02 - 10:03)

Also surprisingly common, yes.

[Frank] (10:04 - 10:08)

Pretty dumb, isn't it? Especially for the dumbass builder doing it who should know that.

[Mick] (10:08 - 10:10)

Oh, there's lots of things we could say there, Frank.

[Frank] (10:10 - 10:16)

Well, if you're a professional, you should know what you require before you start.

[Mick] (10:16 - 10:18)

Especially if you're a licensed professional.

[Frank] (10:18 - 10:33)

Well, let's go there. Maybe they weren't licensed, but, wow, some people get some wrap over the knuckles for that and so they should. But we've had to go in and fix a couple, as in there's no building permits and we've had to go retrospectively get all the building and plumbing permits.

Very expensive, very painful, very time-consuming.

[Mick] (10:33 - 10:46)

Yeah, anything where you have to say sorry afterwards and try and fix it up tends to be like that. That's why it's usually a lot better to ask before you do. And if it's an honest mistake, then just try and work your way through the process as best you can.

[Frank] (10:46 - 10:47)

Certainly, yes. I struggle with the honest mistake bit.

[Mick] (10:48 - 10:56)

Yeah, I know. Trust me, some of the things I've had people try and get me to accept when I was on the other side of the counter.

[Frank] (10:56 - 11:06)

Yeah, well, true. Yeah, yeah, totally. But it has an adverse effect on other people.

[Mick]

It does.

[Frank]

Yeah, so what are the types of decisions, outcomes of planning usually around?

[Mick] (11:06 - 12:08)

So the planning scheme is one of the main tools that we use for these types of processes and that sets up two basic controls, the first one being the zone, which controls where you can do what. So in a residential zone, like general residential or low-density or rural living, the main idea there is it's for housing. So the primary use is residential and then there's a few other things that may be able to occur.

And the second one is codes. Now, these deal with issues that apply across the landscape. Landslip that we mentioned earlier is a good example and they apply in addition to the zones.

So with your zone, in a general residential zone, a dwelling will generally be either no permit required, which means it's a very low-risk use in that zone and it usually doesn't need to get a permit if it's designed to meet the standards. And if it doesn't, then it becomes discretionary, which is one where you have to do an assessment against the criteria set out in the planning scheme. And that's one of the big changes that has occurred over the last probably 10 years with the introduction of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme.

[Frank] (12:08 - 12:09)

It's actually been a good thing.

[Mick] (12:09 - 12:10)

Yes, I agree.

[Frank] (12:11 - 12:41)

There's only one thing I'd love to add to that. 

[Mick]

What's that?

[Frank]

Is paid assessments, so pre-lodgement.

So what that means is you're getting an assessment on something you're not sure on, you're putting it in and you're paying the planners at the council to do a pre-assessment because we always like to have no permit required. Yes, I've noticed that over the years. Yeah, well, we all love it.

It makes life easier. You don't have to wait for six weeks. And to be fair, in Tasmania, the six-week process is very, very good.

I hear people complain about it, but I've heard some absolute horror stories in other parts of the country.

[Mick] (12:41 - 12:48)

Oh, look, one of my former bosses, he was based up in New South Wales and it was over 12 months for the front fence on an existing dwelling.

[Amelia] (12:48 - 12:49)

Oh, my goodness.

[Mick] (12:49 - 12:50)

Your eyes, Amelia.

[Amelia] (12:53 - 12:56)

He could build so many houses in that time.

[Mick] (12:56 - 13:38)

And one of the other shocks I had early on, I was representing Tasmania on the National Young Planners Group with the Planning Institute and my interstate colleagues were talking about how long it took to get an approval. Oh, you don't worry about that, it's gone past the deadline, that's fine. Up until quite recently, we were the only state that had a deemed approval system.

So if the council doesn't make a decision in the statutory timeframe, it's deemed approved and you can go to the appeals tribunal to get an answer. Every other state, it was a deemed refusal. So you wouldn't go to the tribunal because it was refused.

So there was an automatic incentive in the Tasmanian system there to make it happen and I've found that's been quite good in being able to get things through the process and force people to make a decision.

[Frank] (13:38 - 14:56)

It's asking that some councils, we pay for a pre-lodgement. 

[Mick]

Yes.

[Frank]

And I think it's actually a really good idea because I like working with the planning department to come up with good solutions, especially on the trickier sites.

What we're facing at the moment in a lot of places, it's there is no pre-lodgement or discussions. They don't want to know you. There's certain councils in Hobart that you can't even talk to them.

You're not allowed to ring them. You cannot have a meeting with them. 

[Amelia]

Is that because you're feeling a bit blindsided when these things don't get through?

[Frank]

No. It's trying to work through the discretions of the scheme and there's interpretation and how that is taken. When we design something that the client, we've worked with the client to come through and say, well, I'm not sure if we're going to be able to get that through.

But if I have a meeting with the planners, we can work our way through and see what their concerns are. And I've done that years gone past, been able to do that and get some really good results. Now it's like it's non-existent.

Or they say yes and they mean no because when it goes through the actual official process, they go back on what they said. And this has happened a couple of times. So I believe a couple of councils bring in this system where you pay them to do an assessment for you and you can have a bit of a chat with them as well.

[Mick] (14:56 - 15:44)

Most of the places I've worked, we've done that because it is common sense and it does make good business practice and we've written it off as an economic development cost because that's effectively what it is. There is an increasing move within the local government sector and it's being driven by risk management to stamp those things out because there is that risk there when you go through the discretionary process with the advertising period that it requires, you don't know what's going to come through the door. So you can get blindsided by things that are raised during that advertising process and then you have to change your answer.

But there is a trend across the industry to reduce those types of processes, which means ultimately you'll end up going to a private consultant for that advice and that's not binding on the planning authority. 

[Frank] (15:44 - 16:00)

And that's exactly right. And also there's a cost involved in that too, which is obvious because you're paying for a professional to give advice on that. And we use consultant planners a lot on trickier projects and we advise customers, look, this is beyond us. We need to go to a professional on this.

[Mick] (16:01 - 16:21)

Yeah, and I'm seeing that in my business as well. So when you do go for a discretion, it is something the client really wants and then you're able to put the argument together. But again, when it goes through the council assessment process, there is statutory authority.

The rules are set out in the planning scheme and part of that process includes considering the representations that are made during the advertising period.

[Frank] (16:22 - 16:27)

And that's an interesting thing, the representation, because a few councils do that a bit different.

[Mick] (16:27 - 16:29)

Most councils do that differently in my experience.

[Frank] (16:30 - 17:00)

Yeah, well, that's true too. Some do it really well, whereas one representation, whether it's even not associated with the actual application, I've had that, that blew my mind, when I just wanted to complain about something but it still went through as representation, had to be voted by the councillors or aldermen. So that's utterly frustrating where other councils, you've got to have three objections before it goes to vote at the council chamber.

So there's a bit of a variation with the thinking of that. What's your thoughts on that?

[Mick] (17:01 - 17:31)

Realistically, by the time you're in a planning application, you need to make that process as efficient as you can. So there is room for some improvement around the state on how many representations trigger something going to the formal council meeting versus being determined by staff.

And I think Local Government Association of Tas are trying to work through that process with the various councils around the state. But some improved consistency would be very good there. 

[Frank] (17:32 - 17:37)

Oh, and yeah, I totally agree. And also making the objections valid, not because you don't like it.

[Mick] (17:38 - 18:00)

Well, that is going to vary between the organisations. I've worked for councils that do make that call and councils that will not make that call. So something comes in, it goes to council, versus reading through, finding out it's got nothing to do with this DA or that specific discretion.

[Frank]

They're going to cut down that tree, which isn't actually on their property, but they don't want to cut down because it's a very nice tree. 

[Mick]

Or something else happening on the neighbour's property.

[Frank] (18:01 - 18:50)

Exactly, yes. And I think they have a right to say on that. And I've been held up on projects because of that. And I've had other ones said, no, don't be ridiculous, it's got nothing to do with you. 

[Amelia]

So it's on somebody else's property?

[Frank]
I had one just here in Launceston. And it was a whole bunch of trees, it was lovely. The proposal was the landscaping in the backyard in conjunction with the extension.

And their objections were, no, we've lost our privacy. But hang on, they're not your trees. And they went and objected and it went through a process.

In the end, when it went into council voting, they said, don't be so ridiculous. It's not your tree. If you wanted trees to do that, plant them yourself.

[Mick]

Logic was able to be applied. 

[Frank]

It was. It's not always the case. But that was a very interesting one. But it wasted the time to go through the council process.

[Mick] (18:51 - 19:06)

Yeah. And local government association is trying to get a, or is working on a development manual that will help with some of those things. And I think there's moves afoot within whichever government might be DPAC, Premier and Cabinet, to try and standardise some of those rules.

[Frank] (19:06 - 19:13)

Which would be brilliant. That makes a lot of sense. Consistency. With everything we do, we just want consistency, don't we? We know we're working with.

[Mick] (19:13 - 19:55)

Frank, next you'll be saying we need the faster, fairer, simpler, cheaper planning system. 

[Frank]

That was coming up. That's later on the list. But someone will mess it up. 

[Mick]

Yeah. Well, reality….

[Frank]

It's all opinions though, isn't it? 

[Mick]

It is. And trying to balance competing interests.

[Frank]

Of course. 

[Mick]

And that is one of the biggest areas in planning. You are usually dealing with opposing parties who have very strongly held views.

Yes. But when you base your assessments on the criteria in the planning scheme, which is what the legal obligation is, then a lot of those disputes can be set aside because most of the time they're not a planning issue. And even if they are a planning issue, do they relate to the discretion that you are required to deal with?

[Frank] (19:55 - 20:09)

Yep. And to the neighbour, some of that feels like they're being aggrieved or affected. They don't necessarily see it that way.

[Mick]

Yes. Exactly. 

[Frank]

And I get that. What about acceptable solutions versus performance criteria in the schemes?

[Mick] (20:10 - 21:00)

So we've talked a fair bit about discretions and advertising. They rely on the performance criteria. So the planning scheme sets two different types of controls for pretty much everything it does.

The first one is the acceptable solution. And the easy example there is your height limit at eight and a half metres, I think it is, in the gen res zone. And if you want to go over that, you've got to demonstrate the impacts to the adjoining properties and that it is actually worthwhile approving.

So the acceptable solutions are basically a tick and move on to the next one and you just run through your assessment like that. And if you get a cross on one of those, that's when you jump across to the performance criteria and invoke a discretion. And discretions under the Act, they are a legislative process.

It must be advertised for a period of 14 days minimum and you've got to advertise in the local paper and also put up a site notice. 

[Frank]

Fair and reasonable.

[Amelia] (21:00 - 21:17)

Does anyone still read the local paper? 

[Frank]

It's online. 

[Mick]

Good point.

[Frank]

But people see the sign and the neighbours get a letter. The directly affected people get a letter. Hey, just letting you know, there's a development application on this.

View it at the council chambers or go online to have a look at it.

[Mick] (21:17 - 21:38)

And that's an interesting one. Having worked on the other side of the counter, you're always told how these people should have been sent a letter. But again, under the Act, because this is a statutory process, it is adjoining owners.

Now, the legislative meaning of that is pretty damn clear. It's been tested a few times through the tribunal and it means you have a common boundary that touches.

[Frank] (21:38 - 21:39)

Yeah. Not because you're across the road.

[Mick] (21:39 - 21:45)

Or two blocks over. Or driving past.

[Frank] (21:45 - 21:49)

Because you've got an issue down the road that wants to have a say and reckons it's going to look like crap.

[Mick] (21:50 - 21:52)

Yeah, well, there's another issue. What things look like.

[Frank] (21:52 - 22:01)

Oh, exactly. And anyone can put an objection in.

[Mick]

Doesn't mean it's relevant. 

[Frank]

Exactly. But also, I mean, you don't have to be in the suburb.

[Mick] (22:01 - 22:02)

You don't even have to be in the state.

[Frank] (22:03 - 22:24)

Yeah, exactly. I remember having that once. Representing their parents or something on something and they hadn't even seen it.

They're just looking at drawings and they haven't been on site. How the context. So that makes it very interesting too.

And people think they're losing something. I think that's half the battle. People think they're losing something.

In a way, they lose a view sometimes. That's one of the most contentious.

[Mick] (22:25 - 22:34)

And that's one of the issues that's not picked up through the planning scheme pretty much at all. Unless it's from a public, basically a public type of zone and from a public place.

[Frank] (22:35 - 22:36)

Because no one owns a view, do they?

[Mick] (22:37 - 22:37)

No.

[Frank] (22:37 - 23:18)

No. And that's a tough one for people to swallow. When you bought a property in Tasmania, we're not exactly the flattest state around in Australia. We live in a valley, Hobart's in a valley and you look at these, Devonport, Burnie, you're always looking at a view.

We're very fortunate here. Then someone builds in front of you or next to you and it takes part of or all of your view. And if you're within the requirements of the scheme, you've got little chance of getting it knocked back.

[Amelia]

Well, it's not just about the view. It's other things. 

[Frank]

But the view is the thing that people really get upset over. Really upset. 

[Amelia]

That's true. But it's other people being able to see into your backyard or.

[Frank]

Yeah, the privacy.

[Amelia] (23:18 - 23:22)

Yeah, that sort of thing. I'm sure that's common. You've found that come up, Mick?

[Mick] (23:22 - 23:31)

Look, we do get that quite a bit, Amelia, but let's be realistic. When you live on the side of a hill, you can see out and everybody else can see in, usually. Yep.

[Amelia] (23:31 - 23:31)

Yes.

[Mick] (23:32 - 23:41)

I grew up on the side of a hill down in Hobart and while we thought we had privacy, the reality is most people could see into our backyard. It just felt private to us.

[Frank] (23:41 - 23:51)

Yes, exactly. It's interesting because also people feel they've lost something or their privacy has been compromised.

[Mick] (23:51 - 24:02)

Yeah, and that's one of the reasons why there are some controls in the planning scheme in the residential zones for privacy. But once you comply with the acceptable solution, planning scheme doesn't let you go there and have that argument.

[Frank] (24:03 - 24:03)

That's right.

[Mick] (24:03 - 24:12)

So if they've met the minimum setback or they've provided the screening, that meets the standard. There's not much more we can do. 

[Frank]

So you've been in the game for a while.

[Mick] (24:12 - 24:24)

Just a year or two. 20. Yeah.

[Frank]

How have you seen planning schemes change and evolve? Has it been better? Obviously it's become more complex. What's your personal opinion?

[Mick] (24:26 - 25:34)

Well, look, we've had a government campaign based on being simpler, better, faster, fairer and cheaper. And I think you've summarised the outcome quite well. We had relatively simple planning schemes 20-odd years ago.

Some of them were quite dated and people didn't like them, but they were very clear in what they did and didn't do. So now we've got a series of planning schemes around the state based on a state template, which was developed by the government and is managed by the government. And that is consistent with a range of requirements at the national level, the state level and the regional local level.

So what most people don't realise is a lot of those requirements for privacy, setback, height, open space, those types of controls are actually part of a national suite of policy initiatives. 

[Frank]

I was not aware of that. 

[Mick]

I thought that might be the case. I wasn't aware until I became involved in some other processes. 

[Frank]

That's really cool. 

[Mick]

And there is a review that is underway at the moment of the residential controls under the Tasmanian Planning Scheme.

And some of the discussion papers on that actually provide an overview of how we compare to other states.

[Frank] (25:35 - 25:45)

Another question I've got for you, just in relation to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, is that unique within Australia in so far as how we have a state-wide scheme?

[Mick] (25:46 - 26:40)

So in terms of the Planning Commission, every state has an agency who makes those types of decisions. In terms of the Tas Planning Scheme, we're not alone. There's a number of states that have either got it and are implementing it, like we are.

I think we've got about four councils left to actually get the final tick. 

[Frank]

It's taken a while, hasn't it?

[Mick]

Faster, fairer. So there's some other states that are going through that same process at a similar level. I think the majority of states are trying to get to the point where they've actually got that set of controls that are consistent across the state. But you have to remember most planning regimes in other states are a lot more advanced than ours because they've been doing it a lot longer.

So they have a lot more of the local controls that will override the generic provisions across the state anyway. Hence the previous example I gave of 12 months for approval on our front fence on a non-heritage listed of property in New South Wales. 

[Frank] (26:41 - 26:59)

Yeah, I shake my head at that. I talk to my friends in the BDAA around Australia and I get an idea of some of the challenge of timeframes that they have to deal with, and it does my head in. And the sheer cost that's involved with some of these as well, especially when you get in the more dense areas of the larger cities because it becomes a lot more complex.

[Mick] (26:59 - 27:32)

It does. Unfortunately there appears to be a bit of an outcome where we're getting more controls to try and improve outcomes that don't necessarily work very well together. So rather than just having, say, a single building envelope, which is one of the controls we've got in our Tasmanian planning scheme, there's that, plus there's some other things, plus there's a garage control, plus there's a fence control, plus there's a this control and a that control.

And it's just like they keep adding Band-Aids on rather than trying to fix the basic building envelope control and then hanging things off that. 

[Frank] (27:32 - 27:39)

Yep. Makes it very difficult. And time, money and disputes. Then you've got planners that get involved and you've got lawyers that get involved as well.

[Mick] (27:39 - 27:47)

Well, that's becoming a pretty normal requirement for any appeal these days. If you haven't got a lawyer, you're putting yourself at disadvantage.

[Frank] (27:48 - 27:55)

Yep. Very much so. So what are the key trends and what are other things you're seeing from the planning desk?

[Mick] (27:56 - 29:02)

Well…So the big one that I've already mentioned is, well, there's two. The first one is the fact that we desperately need the work done on the strategy to actually build how the planning system works because the DA or the planning application for your house is the tail end of the process. The other side of that is we need the state government to start having the conversations about the options we have to deal with the growth that we're going to get over the coming decades.

And at the moment, the government isn't having those conversations. There's some really good stuff coming out of other states, particularly Victoria. Infrastructure Victoria has a really good report on the different types of development options you have with your main activity centres, your corridors versus greenfield development and normal infill controls.

And it explains why you have to have those options and what the outcomes are if you do or don't make this particular decision on how you grow because we know that TAS has grown a lot faster than the state predicted over the last 10 years and that growth is not going to slow down in the short term.

[Frank] (29:03 - 29:07)

It's in a hiccup at the moment with its growth, but that will come back.

[Mick] (29:08 - 29:17)

Yeah, but is that the result of a failure to do strategic planning over the last few decades? 

[Frank]

Great point, yeah. 

[Mick]

Because from my desk, that's what I see.

[Frank] (29:18 - 29:34)

Yeah. No, that makes a very valid point because strategic planning, because we look at areas that could be developed. I just look around Launceston where there's big blank areas and go, why isn't that being developed?

It makes sense. It's still close to the city, you know, but there's nothing out there, you know?

[Mick] (29:34 - 29:38)

So I suppose I really should explain a bit about strategic planning, shouldn't I?

[Frank] (29:38 - 29:44)

You better. Mind you, I don't think some of the listeners will understand some of this, but anyway, we'll see how we go.

[Mick] (29:45 - 29:58)

Okay, I'll try and pick my comparison carefully. Strategic planning, which is where we deal with those much bigger questions, is a bit like your Christmas club. You need to do it consistently and on an ongoing basis.

[Frank]

Yes.

[Mick] (29:58 – 30:41)

And aside from a few relatively short term interventions with the current regional land use strategies and the Tasmanian Planning Scheme a lot of those big discussions haven’t occurred within the state and they haven’t been coordinated across different agencies. So we’re now in a position where we’re trying to get that overcome with the Tasmanian Planning Policies which are going through an assessment process with the commission but they need to be done, we need to have different agencies talking to each other and with each other and then in 5-10 years we’ll start to see the outcome on that. It’s a bit like starting your Christmas club on the first of December and expecting a full amount to do everything come the 21st. It’s not going to happen that fast. It can’t.

[Frank] (30:41 – 30:42)

So what’s holding it up?

[Mick]  

Political will. 

[Frank]

Ok

[Mick]  (30:44 – 30:46)

Sorry, political will and budget 

[Frank] (30:46 – 30:48)

Of course, well budget always comes into it doesn’t it? 

[Mick]

Yeah

[Amelia] (30:48 – 31:06)

So my question is on, you touched on re-zoning before, are we going to see more of that to anticipate that because we’re sort of in this state now where, you know your sort of trying to play catch up with houses and having enough and all of that stuff.

[Frank]

Availability

[Amelia]

Yeah, exactly

[Frank] (31.10 – 31:21)

Plus all the corridors you need, how we’re going to get people in and out, the public open spaces, the schools, allocated areas for industrial, light industrial, education…

[Mick] (31:21-31:56)

And you’ve just made a really good example of a lot of the big picture questions we need to look at.  It’s about how you live so where do you live, where do you work, where do your kids go to school, what do you do for fun on the weekends? How do you get between all those functions, where do you get your groceries? Where do you walk the dog? Where can your kids go to ride their bike? They’re a lot of the questions that come together through the strategic planning process.  And the state hasn’t been leading those types of conversations and unfortunately that’s not something that the regions or a single council can do on a wide enough basis to actually drive those reforms at the government level. 

[Frank] (31:56 – 32:21)

So then based on that, with the land releases that have already happened in the last, say 5 years, just before covid and then during covid, would also contribute to the cost of land, because there is less land to choose from because of the amount of subdivisions and the extraordinary growth in construction over that period. There’s just not enough available. So then they can ask more money for supply and demand

[Mick] (32:21 – 32:37)

Well, around a number of parts of Tas we’ve also had a slightly different influence on that and that is, and we used to see it when I was working for local government you’d get developers and people who do the subdivisions and that type of thing who have effectively banked their permits, they’ve banked their approvals 

[Frank]

That’s true.

[Mick] (32:38 – 32:55)

So they can manage the price point of the blocks when they come on the market. And at the moment there’s no program from the state to be able to deal with that and that is a big issue because there’s nothing in Tasmania to actually force people develop when they’re sitting on this land, Unlike every other state in Australia.

[Frank]

Oh is that really? 

[Mick]

Yeah 

[Frank]

I did not know that 

[Amelia]

Wow

[Mick]

We’re the only state without a re-development agency. 

[Frank]

Seriously? 

[Mick]

So at the moment it’s split between, and apologies if I get this wrong to the state government it sits between to coordinator general, state growth, state planning office and there’s probably another one or two there I’ve missed.  

[Frank] (33:13 - 33: 28)

Wow. That’s really interesting because I remember we were doing some work for social housing and we were looking at all these lots in a town up the river called George Town and all these lots there, never developed, the subdivisions are there, all the lots, no roads, no sewer, but the titles are there

[Mick]

Yep. 

[Frank] (33:29 - 33:42)

Never developed It was really bizarre. It was owned by the government, but it was a really weird thing and we were told to do research for a new push for some social housing and we were looking at this, I’ve never seen this before. 

[Mick]

Back in the day

[Frank]

And they were old. 

[Mick] (33:43 – 33:48)

Yeah. So we’re talking probably 50’s, 60’s, 70’s?

[Frank]

Yes. Exactly. 

[Mick] (33:49 - 34:07)

Yeah so a lot of time back then when the state did the subdivision, because they controlled that process, doesn’t mean they provided all the infrastructure, whether it’s water, stormwater, sewer, roads, open space so they did subdivisions on paper, created the legal entity but they didn’t do all the other stuff that is required.  

[Frank]

It’s bizarre. Yeah. But I think you’d be wise to have an agency to be able to push these developments across, because like you say they are banked. 

[Mick]

And that’s one good example, dealing with the infrastructure that is needed for those areas, but then you’ve got the other example and the Hobart rail corridor is a better example because you’ve got the other end of the argument. You’ve got something there that is supported by policy for redevelopment for establishment of apartments for intensification and building things up , so you get to provide a different type of housing 

[Frank]

Yes

[Mick]

But there’s no agency to coordinate that, to acquire the land and do the provision of the big infrastructure and then apportion that cost across the life of that development. Unfortunately we’ve seen local government lose a lot of the powers they did have in that area when TasWater was created. They lost the power to strategically provide water and sewer infrastructure and then recover the cost over the next 30 years. And TasWater hasn’t really been in a position to start to be able to aggressively pursue those options since they were created.   

[Frank]

Oh no definitely not. Because they had top go fix up the mess they took over.  

[Mick]

Funny that 

[Frank]

Yeah.  Left to wrack and ruin that stuff and half the state had to boil their water. 

[Mick]

Oh well, look it’s ah…

[Frank]

To their credit…everyone criticises TasWater, but to be fair they’ve seriously put a lot investment in place to improve the water and sewage process.  

[Mick] (35:36 - 35:52)

Yeah , but if there had of been a little bit more thought before TasWater and the regional organisations were done, those kind of issues could have been put into the forward planning. They could have had a long term infrastructure plan, put the money in and started to provide them on a more strategic and progressive basis. 

[Frank]

Thinking ahead, that’s a novel thing isn’t it?

[Mick]

Yeah, It’s almost like you’re doing strategic planning or something? 

[Frank]

Yeah, wow. 

[Mick]

Apologies Amelia, we’re a little bit cynical. 

[Frank]

Yeah, really. 

[Amelia]

That’s ok I’m used to it now, frank going off on his soapbox. 

[Frank]

Oh, I do a little bit. And I’m going to get onto one now. 

[Mick]

Go for it! 

[Amelia]

Oh no here we go! This is such a hot topic of conversation so we’ve decided to break down the podcast into two separate parts so we might wrap up part one there but stay tuned for part two on our next episode with town planner Mick from Town Planning Solutions. Thanks for listening to the Building Design, Prime Time Podcast, we’ll catch you next time. 

[OUTRO]

You’re listening to the Building Design, Prime Time Podcast.