In Victoria, the idea of establishing a centralised committee to assess major planning applications, specifically those valued over $50 million, is not a new one. The proposed committee may include key stakeholders such as a State Government representative, a local government representative, an architect and a planning consultant. This centralised approach aims to streamline the planning process while ensuring multiple perspectives are considered. However, like any proposed change, there are both benefits and disbenefits to this model.
Balanced Decision-Making
One of the significant advantages of a centralised committee is that it brings together multiple perspectives. By having a State Government representative, a local government representative, an architect, and a planning consultant, the committee could balance the broader economic and policy goals of the state with the specific concerns of the local community. The State Government representative ensures alignment with regional development strategies, while the local government representative provides context on zoning, local policies, and infrastructure needs. The architect brings design and overall quality considerations, and the planning consultant offers technical expertise in urban design, land use, and compliance with planning regulations.
Reduced Local Political Influence
In many instances, planning decisions can be affected by local political pressures or lobbying. Centralising the assessment process could mitigate the influence of these local politics, ensuring that decisions are made based on broader principles and technical assessments rather than immediate local interests. The involvement of State Government representatives further strengthens the commitment to state-level planning objectives, promoting a more impartial, state-wide approach to major projects.
Streamlined Process
A centralised committee could streamline the assessment process for major developments by bringing together relevant representatives in a single decision-making authority. This approach reduces the need for multiple rounds of approvals and the risk of various stakeholders working with different agendas. By reducing delays, helping to avoid conflicts, and ensuring that projects proceed more quickly, it could benefit both developers and the community by creating a clear decision-making pathway.
Expertise and Knowledge
The inclusion of an architect and planning consultant would ensure that every decision is rooted in sound, expert advice. Planning consultants are well-versed in the technical aspects of major developments, including environmental assessments, infrastructure planning, and legal requirements. Their involvement would ensure that all proposals are evaluated thoroughly, leading to better-informed decisions that meet regulatory standards and long-term sustainability goals.
Over-Centralisation of Power
While centralising the planning process can streamline decision-making, it may also concentrate too much power in the hands of a few individuals, potentially overlooking local needs and desires. The involvement of a local government representative does provide a local voice, but it may not be enough to capture the concerns of a broader community. Over-centralisation might also undermine the autonomy of local governments, potentially leading to decisions that are less reflective of local values or interests.
Potential for Conflicting Interests
While the diverse composition of the committee offers a range of perspectives and expertise, it could also lead to conflicting viewpoints. State government representatives might prioritise economic growth, while local government representatives may focus more on community welfare and maintaining local character. Architects might seek design excellence from every project, while planning consultants may lean toward technically efficient solutions that may not align with community sentiment. Balancing these diverse interests could slow down decision-making and lead to compromises that satisfy no one. Too many chefs spoiling the broth, so to speak.
Limited Public Accountability
With a centralised committee, the decision-making process may appear more opaque to the public. Residents may feel distanced from the process, leading to dissatisfaction if they perceive their concerns as overlooked. The relatively small number of stakeholders on the committee might also limit the diversity of perspectives considered, potentially excluding other important voices, such as environmental groups or industry representatives, which could make the process seem less transparent or accountable.
Risk of Slow Decision-Making
Although a centralised committee might streamline the process in some ways, the need to coordinate between various stakeholders could also lead to delays. Each representative will have individual priorities and concerns, which could result in lengthy discussions and disagreements, especially when trying to reconcile state-wide goals with local needs. This could delay important projects, undermining the efficiency of the planning system.
A centralised committee to assess major planning applications in Victoria could offer several advantages, including more balanced decision-making, reduced local political influence, and improved efficiency. However, it also presents challenges, such as the risk of over-centralisation, conflicting interests, limited public accountability, and potential delays. To maximise the benefits of this approach, it will be essential to ensure that the committee remains transparent, inclusive, and responsive to all stakeholders’ concerns, balancing state, local, and community needs.
The opinions expressed in this video are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or position of Ratio. This article has been prepared to open dialogue about the planning system in Victoria and to encourage bold and courageous thinking about how we can improve planning in Victoria.
I plan on releasing a series of articles that challenge our system and would be keen to hear from readers on your suggestions for improving the planning system.
