IN THIS four part series, Emma Riley, State President of the Planning Institute of Australia, Tasmanian Division examines whether the planning system really is at a crisis point, in light of recent criticism and whether we need to review and update the system or undertake planning reform.

All up Tasmania allocates approximately $3.50 per capita towards the development of planning policy and strategy. In comparison, NSW dedicates approximately $14 per capita, Victoria $27.50 and the Northern Territory a whopping $147 per capita. In terms of personnel, both NSW and Victoria have approximately 1 public servant per 20,000 people to assist in developing their planning policy, while in Tasmania it is more like 1 per 80,000. It is this significant lack of resources and commitment at State government level, which the Planning Institute firmly believes is the fundamental problem with the planning system at the present time, rather than any structural flaws.
Part 1: Resourcing

This year has seen the announcement and beginnings of a review into the planning system by the State Government, the fourth review since the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS) was implemented in 1993. The review as outlined in the terms of reference was essentially to examine how the planning system can be improved and made more efficient.

However since the review was announced, the planning system has become a hot political topic. On a weekly basis we are hearing some criticism about the planning system reported in the media. So the question now is whether the planning system is really in crisis and what do we need to do to address these problems.

The RMPS was, at the time it was implemented the best practice model for a planning system in Australia. It still is a good model, in that it provides a clear separation between policy making and implementation and is based upon the sound principle of ensuring sustainable development of our natural and physical assets. This aim is then supported by various objectives including public involvement in the planning process which is embodied in the suite of legislation that makes up the RMPS. But then why do we have constant criticism?

Fundamentally the system that we have is robust and while it has an inherent complexity this is largely unavoidable if we are to achieve good planning outcomes. In the end planning is about balancing various interests in order to achieve the best overall outcome for the community now and in the future. However since its implementation the planning system has been severely compromised by a lack of commitment and resourcing, particularly at the State Government level, which is primarily responsible for discharging the responsibilities under the RMPS.

At present there are four main state government planning agencies/units. These are the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC), the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal (RMPAT), the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority (SCWA) and the Land Use Planning Branch (LUPB). Both the RPDC and RMPAT are independent authorities under the planning system, responsible for discharging certain functions, SCWA functions as a planning authority as defined under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, while the LUPB is the key land use policy forming unit of government.

In nearly all other states the policy forming functions of government are represented as a department. In Victoria it is the Department of Planning and Community Development who work closely with the Department of Premier and Cabinet to ensure a whole of government approach to major strategic projects such as Melbourne 2030. In NSW it is the Department of Planning, Queensland it is the Department of Infrastructure and Planning while in the Northern Territory (with a population half that of Tasmania) it is the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. In Tasmania we have a very small unit within a line agency (Department of Justice). As a result the development of land use planning policy and strategy is given a much higher bureaucratic profile in other States and Territories with a dedicated ‘public face’ for land use planning. The lack of such a profile in Tasmania results in poor communication between government departments of the implications of their actions on our growth and development in planning terms and difficulty for the public and the profession in engaging with the planning process.

In addition, the funding allocated to planning policy and strategy development in Tasmania is abysmal. The LUPB has a yearly budget of approximately $1.7 million (less than any of the other agencies, including SCWA which is allocated at least $2.3m). This was increased by $750K over each of the past two years to assist in the preparation of the three regional strategies and following on from that, 29 new planning schemes for each local government area (which would then be consistent with the regional strategies). In other words a total of $1.5m has been allocated to address the clear shortfalls in planning strategy in the State: a ridiculously small amount of money for something that will ensure that we can plan for our future growth and allocate our physical, social and community resources appropriately. Just imagine if for example we had planned for the growth of the Sorell and Southern Beaches area properly and how much money and angst that would be saving now!

All up Tasmania allocates approximately $3.50 per capita towards the development of planning policy and strategy. In comparison, NSW dedicates approximately $14 per capita, Victoria $27.50 and the Northern Territory a whopping $147 per capita. In terms of personnel, both NSW and Victoria have approximately 1 public servant per 20,000 people to assist in developing their planning policy, while in Tasmania it is more like 1 per 80,000.

It is this significant lack of resources and commitment at State government level, which the Planning Institute firmly believes is the fundamental problem with the planning system at the present time, rather than any structural flaws.

For example:
• There is a lack of consistency with planning schemes across the state (and therefore unnecessary complexity) because there is a policy vacuum at the state and regional level. At present we have only four State policies and are only in the beginnings of the preparation of regional planning strategies. There is no point making standardised planning schemes unless we identify where strategically we want to head as a community, as we will be making arbitrary decision.
• There are delays in the assessment of planning schemes, amendment applications and projects of state significance by the RPDC because they are understaffed.
• The RPDC’s decisions are difficult to make because there is no policy framework for the commissioner and delegates to be guided by.
• We have difficulty in retainer planners in this State because there are no professional opportunities in State government for career advancement and those in local government are constantly facing the pressures of making decisions in a policy vacuum.

In the end until we give the opportunity for the RMPS to operate how it should through appropriate resourcing it is not possible to identify what the key problems are with the planning system. We may with this review process end up just throwing good money after bad!

Part 2 of this series examines the debate over decision making, time delays and appropriate public input. Part 3 examines the Resource Planning and Development Commission and planning policy while Part 4 provides an overview of how we should seek to improve planning outcomes in Tasmania.