Council to push for planning process change
FAST-tracking the process for planning scheme amendments is one item on the Sunshine Coast Council's wish-list for the Local Government Association of Queensland's annual conference.
Coast councillors will decide in Nambour today whether it pursues the opportunity to remove the first State Government review of any future planning scheme amendment proposals.
If officer advice is followed at today's meeting, the council will take to the LGAQ conference in October a motion to: "request to State Government to review processes around the Planning Scheme amendment with a view to removing or significantly reducing the timeframes associated with first State Interest Check Reviews".
Are you in favour of changing the planning scheme amendment process?
This poll ended on 22 August 2016.
Yes, I think it needs to be sped up.
No, I don't think it needs to be changed.
I think there are more important issues that should be dealt with instead.
This is not a scientific poll. The results reflect only the opinions of those who chose to participate.
As it stands, mooted planning scheme amendments are taken to the State Government who must then approve the proposed changes being taken out to the community for feedback.
Planning portfolio holder Division Six Councillor Christian Dickson said that process was resulting in significant delays for even minor proposed amendments.
He hoped the first review process could be removed to enable proposed scheme amendments to be taken to the community first.
"If residents support it, great, if they don't, we have to go back to the drawing board," Cr Dickson explained.
"We want the ability to put out to consultation first before sending it to the State Government."
He thought it would make it quicker for future planning scheme amendments including future flood allowance measures to be made, as well as making it easier and faster for residents to knock on the head proposed changes they didn't support.
Barry Cotterell, acting president of OSCAR, was critical of the council's proposed motion not being taken to external or community consultation before being put forward.
"We're in favour of having time frames of (State Government) reviews but we certainly wouldn't be supportive of removing the State Government from the process," Mr Cotterell said.
Cr Dickson didn't see it as a level of assessment being removed or a move to weaken or make more flexible the planning scheme.
He said a level of flexibility was needed but he felt the current framework was quite strong.
The council could also put forward a motion calling for an investigation into whether local government can legislate for the 'first developers' of new development sites to be re-compensated by other developers that benefit from major infrastructure built by the first developer.