4 July 2014 Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal PO Box Q290 QVB Post Office NSW 1230 Dear Madam or Sir, RE: Review of Local government Compliance and Enforcement Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the summary findings of the above review. The concept of achieving savings through Red Tape reduction is supported by the City of Canada Bay Council (CCBC). I wish to make the following comments on some of the draft recommendations contained in your Fact Sheet dated May 2014. 1. A new partnership between State Government and local government. The partnership model cited here is the Food Regulation Partnership, which appears to be a case of the State Government creating powers and then handing the job over to Local Government with funding to be achieved through inspection fees and fines. Under that model, the State Government retains revenue achieved from State taxes and levies, GST etc., and the job is transferred to Local Government. The model as such is not a great example. In respect of the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, substantial red tape could be cut through simplifying the process of Local Plan Making. For example, once a Planning Proposal passes through the Gateway process, the rest of the process can be handled by Councils. There are plenty of Directions and Controls to guide the process to ensure Councils do not stray from the correct path. If necessary, statutory recognition could be given to Certified Practicing Planners (CPP) to certify that correct process has been followed and all Directions have been complied with. Under the existing process, an otherwise complying Plan can be held up in the Department of Planning due to processes that are not explained, possibly because they are unexplainable. Canada Bay Civic Centre Drummoyne 1a Marlborough Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Locked Bag 1470 Drummoyne NSW 1470 ABN 79 130 029 350 Tel 9911 6555 * Fax 9911 6550 [email protected] www.canadabay.nsw.gov.au DX 21021 Drummoyne 2. The NSW EPA engage in a Partnership Model similar to the Food Regulation Partnership. See comments above on Food Regulation Partnership. 3. Improving the regulatory framework at the State level. An area of regulation that could be improved significantly is the imposition of State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs). The NSW Planning Review was intended to resolve this issue, but that review appears to have stalled. The issue is that Local Government is required to undertake substantial studies and investigations to establish planning controls on a primarily spatial basis. SEPPs are applied as a higher level control which are policy based and which apply wherever there is a conflict with the lower level Local Plan. The SEPPs are usually well intentioned and aimed to achieve social or infrastructure outcomes that are difficult to achieve under Local Plans. Examples are Aged and Disabled Housing, Affordable Housing, including boarding houses and low rental housing. Communities often react poorly by what they consider an intrusion into their otherwise serene and homogeneous environment, with the added justification that their objection is supported by a Local Planning instrument that would prohibit the proposed development if it were not for the SEPP. Councils and Council staff are left with the absurd situation of fighting permissible development that is notionally “prohibited” because a) local instruments are not permitted to duplicate controls that originate in a higher order instrument, and b) the “closed” nature of many planning tables in Standard Template Planning Instruments which are structured to make “prohibited” all development which is not otherwise identified as “permissible with consent” or “permissible without consent”. There is a real need to review the way that Local and State Planning instruments interact to overcome this area of inherent conflict. 4. Agree 5. Agree 6. Agree and in addition develop a Code for dealing with Nuisance or vexatious litigants to be adopted voluntarily by Local Government, but giving statutory recognition to processes adopted by Local Government when dealing with such customers, and to be recognised by the NSW Ombudsman. 7. Agree 8. Agree 9. Agree 2 10. Agree 11. Agree 12. Agree generally with amendments to Local Government Act 1993 with the following exceptions; a) Footpath licences should not be subject to automatic renewals. In CCBC, Council requires all footpath dining operators to produce a certificate of structural suitability where they are located under a shop awning. In CCBC there have been a number of awning collapses over the years, thankfully with no fatalities to date. Council has advised all awning owners of their responsibilities under the Roads Act, and insists a current engineers’ certificate is provided when licencees are renewed. Automatic renewals would place diners at risk. b) S68 approvals issued by a Council may contain conditions eg requiring mobile vendors not to sell goods in a shopping centre. The acceptable conditions may vary between Councils. 13. Agree. 14. Agree. 15. Agree but also insist in this “devolving “ process that Cost Shifting which is a constant issue with State/Local Government relations be properly identified and adequate compensation be provide to Local Government. 16. Agree. 17. Agree. 18. Agree. 19. Agree. 20. Generally agree, without making it too hard to apply additional requirements. As an example, CCBC requires developers of new buildings to supply hydraulic analysis for stormwater management at Development Application (DA) stage to Construction Certificate (CC) standard. The reason is that, being an older area of Sydney, the trunk drainage is in many areas inadequate. Thus if these issues are not properly sorted out at DA stage, the developer (often a home owner) can face lengthy redesign at CC stage to accommodate detention tanks, or install costly pump out systems, or change floor levels to accommodate flows. Leaving this essential design element to CC stage requires a certifier and a builder to be aware of local drainage peculiarities, which if missed is problematic for the home owner/developer to fix later. 21. Agree. 22. Agree. 23. Agree. 24. Agree. 3 25. Agree. 26. Agree. 27. Agree. 28. Agree, but also allow for local requirements to be applied to the standard waste management requirements. 29. Agree. 30. Agree. 31. Agree. 32. Agree. 33. Agree. 34. Agree. 35. Agree. 36. Agree. 37. Agree, subject to Councils being able to review lease fees, apply new conditions if required, or terminate leases with adequate notice but no compensation. Also 10 years should be the maximum with Councils able to opt for a shorter period either generally or for individual cases. 38. Disagree. This issue has not been raised as a problem and looks like new red tape in itself. 39. Agree Findings on Best Practice 1. Agree. 2. Not sure what these Acronyms mean but they are probably a good idea. 3. Agree. 4. Agree. 5. Agree. 6. Agree. 7. Agree. 8. Agree as long as there is no cost shifting to Local Government. 9. Agree. 10. Agree. 11. Agree. 12. Agree. 4 13. Agree. 14. Agree. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this review. Yours faithfully, Tony McNamara Director Planning and Environment 5