The below opinions are those of Sam D’Amico, and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or position of Ratio.

Sam has prepared this series to open a dialogue about the planning system in Victoria and to encourage bold and courageous thinking about how we can improve planning in Victoria.

With more articles to come, Sam would be keen to hear from readers about their suggestions for improving the planning system.

Please reach out to Sam at mail@ratio.com.au.

In Victoria, there has been more willingness by the State Government to reform planning since the 1990s Kennett/Maclellan era. Currently, a review of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act) is being undertaken which has seen the establishment if the Development Facilitation Program, the commencement if the codification of ResCode commence, and the recent appointment of our very own Colleen Peterson to the newly formed position of Head of State Planning at the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP). These measures are all an attempt to speed up and improve the current planning process.

This willingness to review our current system has prompted me to consider topics that are worthy of raising and debating, even though they might be considered too ‘outside the box’. The below does not necessarily capture my views or those of Ratio but have been prepared to further a dialogue about the planning system in Victoria and encourage bold and courageous thinking.

To begin, I would like to explore the idea of privatising town planning in Victoria. There would be merits and drawbacks to privatisation and, undoubtably, parallels will be drawn to the privatisation of the building approvals system. Some may even say that it is self-serving for a consultant town planner to be advocating for privatisation. However, I’m not necessarily advocating for privatisation as an outcome but simply encouraging us to think more widely.

The ‘Why’ of Planning Privatisation

I used to think that privatising planning was fanciful however, through VC243, the State Government began to introduce the codification of ResCode. This means when an application meets a quantifiable standard, it was deemed to comply with the objective. As we understand the situation, there are further reforms afoot that will further codify Standards of ResCode and, if this is the case, why couldn’t certain planning applications be considered by an independent consultant?

So, what about qualitative Standards such as neighbourhood character? Perhaps there’s an opportunity to rethink neighbourhood character assessments or set clearer direction on what ‘respecting the existing/preferred character’ means for our residential areas to enable the full codification of ResCode.

Privatisation could be for part of the process. For instance, an application could be certified by a private planner, then this application is submitted to Council for advertising and decision, removing the need for a RFI and referral, all of which was undertaken by the private planner previously.

Limiting Local Politics

This process would also limit Council’s consideration to matters relating to neighbourhood character. Limiting or removing local politics from the planning process and allow decisions to be made on their planning merit would be a key draw for planning privatisation. Not only would this provide greater certainty to the development industry and surrounding properties, but we could reduce public cost and waiting time. Imagine a system where Councillors no longer grandstand in Council meetings and overturn Council planner recommendations for political gain.

Customer Service

Whilst most local government planners are great to deal with, being burdened by high workloads, internal bureaucracy, and politics can often lead to delays or poor decision-making. Private companies, driven by competition, will undoubtably place a higher emphasis on customer service and speed. With clear performance metrics and the threat of losing business, private firms may have stronger incentives to make quicker assessments and issue decisions faster.

The Flip Side of Privatisation

We can’t consider the positives, without also contemplating the negatives. One of the most significant concerns about privatising town planning is the risk of corruption and conflict of interest.

The IBAC report on corruption has highlighted instances where private entities have engaged in unethical practices to influence planning decisions. However, local government bodies appear to have been equally engaged in the unethical conduct. Codification should be able to rule out this issue as applications should be able to be audited.

Our system is heavily geared towards public participation, more so than in other states. Privatisation might result in the reduction of community involvement, particularly if third party appeals are removed (another topic for another day). Whilst not necessarily a bad thing, this could result in planning decisions that lack community input and do not respond to community concerns. Arguably, this challenges our democratic system.

Striking the Balance between Public and Private

The privatisation of town planning in Victoria presents both opportunities and challenges, more than those mentioned above. While it can bring increased efficiency and cost savings, it also raises potential concerns about accountability and public participation. If privatisation was to be explored, it would be crucial to strike a balance that harnesses the strengths of private sector involvement while safeguarding the public interest.

I plan on releasing a series of articles that challenge our system and would be keen to hear from readers and industry practitioners about their suggestions for improving the planning system.

Please reach out to Ratio at mail@ratio.com.au.