The Victorian state government's decision to take control of the planning of projects across Melbourne has drawn the usual howls of protest from local governments.
However, the planning system needs root-and-branch reform to create a national set of rules that every one can agree upon.
The current system is far too complex, consumes too many resources and takes too long. We have a system where "community consultation" often descends into screaming matches. Local governments, in the face of bitter disputes with their communities in uproar, simply run for cover, leaving it to an appeal body to sort out the mess.
According to a recent Master Builders Association survey, planning delays add an average $19,000 to the cost of residential building projects. The MBA says it takes an average 20 weeks for builders to secure a planning permit.
In a time of economic gloom, we should rethink a planning system that slows growth for no real benefit.
The first question is whether this system is providing better outcomes for the community, local governments and developers. The answer is a resounding "no".
Until the 1970s, planning was concerned with strategic issues of land use, allocating resources and achieving organisational solutions to urban design issues.
In this form, planning was about objective and quantifiable standards and therefore planning was a quick and relevant process of organising the principles of a design, not an exploration of detail.
Today, designers must address a minefield of objectives. Reference issues such as "neighbourhood character", "urban context" and "environmental performance" translate into a maze of design guidelines open to many interpretations.
Even the smallest planning application must be widely advertised. In effect, third party intervention can take any application to an appeals process. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has become a cottage industry.
The subjective nature of so many planning guidelines means that objectors can raise issues with virtually any project.
In turn, these issues can only be resolved by seeking expensive opinions from expert consultants, making the current system good business for planners, traffic engineers, environmental consultants and lawyers. It is no wonder that more time is often spent getting a planning permit than designing and constructing a project.
The system is so unproductive, expensive and time consuming, it should be rethought.
Planning should be about allocating resources and determining urban form and building types. If a standard cannot be quantified, then it should not be a planning issue. If you comply with a quantifiable standard, there should be no debate and you should get approval.
The key role for local government should be to set the parameters under which designers and builders can develop plans in confidence.
This is where local governments can talk to the community and develop visions according to the type of development allowed, the height of a building, where it can be located, what setbacks are required and the materials that can be used.
Local governments need to do some hard work with their communities to create an agreed vision for the future.
Councils have been very noisy in promoting their visions in their council plans, but they have also been very quiet when it comes to detailing precisely what they mean by their visions.
It is about taking responsibility for planning within accepted national building standards.
Australia needs a national set of rules that everyone can agree upon to deliver a fair and efficient planning framework.
A deliberately wobbly set of design principles is not the way forward.
In setting up a national infrastructure plan, federal, state and local government should also be looking to create a new planning and design framework.
Peter Brook is the design director of Peddle Thorp in Melbourne, a firm practising in architecture, planning and interior design.
