Council should decide planning implications

I have read Mr Norman Harris' letter (Time to update planning instruments and consult public, Peninsula News edition 455) three times and I still don't know what he is talking about.

He says "The options for Brick Wharf Rd as part of the road network are numbered" but he doesn't tell us which options he means or how many they number or which road network he is referring to, so how can we judge such a comment?

If he is suggesting that Brick Wharf Rd should be closed, why doesn't he just say so?

If that is his suggestion, how does he justify it?

What alternative is he proposing for the road network?

He then goes on to say that the rejection of the Sporties proposal by the Planning Panel means that "the zoning shown is non-compliant".

Non-compliant with what?

The zoning is established in a statutory instrument and cannot be non-compliant.

A development proposal might be non-compliant with the zoning, but this doesn't seem to be what he means.

He seems to be suggesting that, in some way, the Planning Panel's decision has rendered the zoning requirements null and void.

This is an absurdity, as the Panel has no such powers.

Only the Minister has the power to alter a zoning.

He then says that "land shown as L2 and L1 ... is not consistent with the decision made by the Panel," but does not explain what the inconsistency is (remembering that inconsistent and non-compliant are two different things).

However, the Panel does not deal with land, as such.

The Panel deals with development applications in the framework of statutory zoning and such instruments as the Medium Density Development Control Plan.

It has done its job and handed down its decision.

Whether that decision has any broader implications has to be decided by Council.

He then said: "the time interval ... to incorporate infrastructure, Sea Level Rise, climate change and variations is now the issue of concern."

One assumes that he means that these concerns should be urgently taken into account in amending the zoning, although this might be a misinterpretation.

However, leaving aside the puzzling question of what can be meant by "variations", it is to be presumed that these concerns were a factor in arriving at the current zoning, so why do they alone now demand a revision of the zoning, unless something has dramatically changed since 2013?

He then asks: "How many appropriate developments will be approved during the time it takes for planning instruments to be updated and comply with the Panel's decision?"

Of course, one hopes that appropriate developments will always be approved, that is the purpose of the approval process, although admittedly, it sometimes fails in practice.

Nevertheless, it is somewhat bizarre to suggest that the Panel has control of the planning process and that a single decision of the Panel forces the planning authorities into a wholesale revision of their instruments.

Of course, I do not dispute any contention that the current planning instruments are woefully inadequate.

I have said so many times, but it is ridiculous to think that these inadequacies apply only to the Brick Wharf Rd area.

I do not see that this leads to a need for the Department of Planning to hold a meeting in Woy Woy "to discuss planning ramifications of the Sporties refusal".

The Sporties refusal, in itself, does not justify such attention.

If there is to be any kind of meeting to debate the overall planning requirements of the Peninsula (about which the Mayor is, presumably, still thinking), let us not involve the Department of Planning.

The competence of this body is well demonstrated by the lamentable Regional Plan.

He concludes by suggesting that "the public...(be) included in pre-Development Application meetings," without defining exactly what is meant by "public" and with no indication of the stage at which a pre-Development Application meeting (there are often many such) should be open.

As someone with some experience of planning machinery, I can only say that, if every discussion with or request for information from the duty planner at the Council counter had to be attended by the "public", "mayhem is assured", as Mr Harris so elegantly puts it.

Far be it from me to defend Council staff members, but it is obvious that the planning office cannot expeditiously cope with the workload that it has now.

If Mr Harris is anxious to multiply that workload, I hope he is also in favour of increasing rates, so that adequate numbers of staff can be recruited to execute the programme he espouses.

Email, 11 Oct 2018

Bruce Hyland, Woy Woy