Aldermen don two hats in planning
Simon Fraser explains how councillors are expected to develop a split personality
HAVING served as a proxy on the Glenorchy Planning Authority several times in the past few years, I’m convinced a large percentage of the public do not understand how planning authorities work.
Your council is composed of two different organisations: the council which operates under the Local Government Act and the Planning Authority, which operates under planning legislation.
Local government requires elected members to have a split personality. As councillors we’re expected to listen to our constituents and respond to their concerns.
As members of a planning authority, we must make decisions based on whether an application is consistent with the local planning scheme, regardless of objections in the local community.
Most elected members are not experts in planning and prudence dictates we follow the recommendations of planning officers, who assess applications against the relevant scheme, review and respond to objections raised and use their expertise to make recommendations for approval or rejection.
If the planning authority rejects the recommendations, the applicant or objectors can appeal to the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal, incurring significant costs for council and often resulting in the original recommendation being upheld.
For example, I recently acted as a member of the Glenorchy Planning Authority for a residential development in Rosetta. The social housing applicant proposed a 20-unit development on a steep parcel of land surrounded by an established single-dwelling residential area.
Despite the best of intentions, this organisation made no attempt to consult the community about the proposal, and ease any concerns they had, before the application was submitted.
Predictably, some in the community were alarmed at the prospect of having such a dense residential development on their doorstep. Some objections were offensive and inappropriate including concerns about the “type” of people that would be living next to them.
Others however were sensible, including concerns about increased traffic, lines of sight exiting the driveway, on street parking, the accessibility of the steep driveway and the location of waste facilities. It’s difficult to ignore concerns of people who understand the nuances of their local area better than anyone else.
The recommendation by council officers was to approve the development. The planning authority including myself voted against it 3 -2, citing concerns about traffic impacts and vehicular access.
My intent in voting against this was not to reject the development entirely but to prompt the applicant to take some concerns into consideration and gain more local support for their proposal.
Residents in the room applauded, felt like their voice had made a difference and left triumphantly, not realising that the development remained a fait accompli.
In the weeks after, the council was able to engage in mediation with the applicant and come to a resolution, before incurring the costs associated with a tribunal.
Often tribunals aren’t avoided, and councils incur a significant cost that results in the original recommendation being upheld anyway.
As an alderman, my constituents expect me to listen and respond to their concerns and most do not make the distinction between this role and my other as a planning authority member.
Having consistency in how applications are assessed is critical, and developers should not be subject to the vagaries of 29 different planning authorities. Equally, it’s untenable for councillors to be in a situation where they can’t represent the concerns of their constituents and are forced into being a rubber stamp.