Planning appeals should go to administrative tribunal
Frank Wiffen ("Saga illustrates planning system flaws", PN616) has pointed out some of the shortcomings of the development-approval system.
There are several others that deserve the Minister's attention, particularly as they relate to small-scale applications that drag on for months, for no reason at all except the cumbersome process that Council follows for every application.
I have previously suggested that the backlog can easily be dealt with, by a simple alteration in the Act to change "deemed to be refused" to "deemed to be approved" after, say, 60 days.without a decision.
Front fences, carports and the like could pass automatically through the approval process, unless the Council had some specific objection that can be brought to the applicant's attention for correction.
Probably, one person in the Planning Office could deal with all these trivial matters expeditiously, sparing applicants months of pointless wait, while the Council's mills grind exceeding small.
Another area that requires attention is the appeals process.
At present, all appeals have to be settled in the Land and Environment Court, through a procedure that is slow and enormously expensive.
In fact, the average person cannot, in any practical sense, appeal against a Council decision, without the risk of bankrupting himself, so justice is effectively denied in a great many cases.
I have suggested to the Minister that, in the case of small applications, an avenue of appeal could be opened to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The Minister's response was that planning requirements were too complicated for NCAT and required the expertise of the court for proper adjudication.
It is puzzling that the Australian Administrative Tribunal manages to deal with an enormous variety of complex subjects, including taxation, welfare, unemployment and immigration (all far more complicated than planning) but NCAT is, apparently, too incompetent to be entrusted with a role in the administrative-appeal process above the kindergarten level.
Every time there is a court appeal, ratepayers have to foot the bill for a legal extravaganza that is both unnecessary and unfair.
I recall that, at one time, the Minister used to appoint a Commissioner (normally, a planning professional) who dealt with matters in an informal hearing and made a recommendation to the Minister who held power over the final decision.
There was no Court palaver, no expensive legal counsel and no delay in getting the decision, so, if the Minister is so concerned about NCAT's lack of planning expertise, it is only necessary to recruit a few "Commissioners" to become members of the Tribunal.
I guarantee that they won't lack for appeals to keep them busy, and the knowledge that an applicant has a means of appeal might introduce some sense of urgency and reality into Council proceedings.
SOURCE:
Email, 15 Apr 2025
Bruce Hyland, Woy Woy