Precedents take over from planning provisions
With the surge in objections to the development application assessment process, it is appropriate to examine the role that council staff planning decisions have in creating precedents.
Lists of precedents are being used to justify a development application when the proposal is non-compliant with planning provisions.
Why is this acceptable in the assessment process?
There are numerous precedents listed to support the DA61194, as reported in Peninsula News on April 6.
Has the assessment process shifted to focus on precedents, totally excluding planning instruments from the assessment?
It is now relevant to consider whether precedents have become the standard for future development application submissions.
When an application is publicly exhibited, should consideration be based on planning instruments or on numerous precedents that have replaced the legal planning provisions?
What are the legalities attached to a precedent?
Has the Land and Environment Court made a ruling that confirms precedents replace planning instruments?
Central Coast Council's current administration will not be able to answer these questions. They will need to be referred to a higher authority.
The convoluted development assessment process includes tangibles, and many intangibles. Introduction of the "standard template" LEP and DCP planning instruments have been responsible for increasing the content of intangibles in the process.
SOURCE:
Letter, 8 Apr 2021
Norm Harris, Umina