Lewis, in the chapter “The Spurious Market” out of the book ‘Suburban Backlash’ delves into the world of building and planning and how the government, local, state and federal have managed, governed and intervened to come up with a system that supposedly is right for local communities.

Lewis begins by giving us a background into the settlement of Australia and how our governments, basically from the word go, have been interfering in private development operations. Lewis explains how land used to be leased to different people with the expectation that they would then develop that land and the land size and what was built on the land would then determine how long it could be leased for. It wasn’t until later in the majority of Australian cities could you purchase and own a piece of land and or the buildings which would be placed on it.

Lewis then interestingly discusses the emergence of building controls is Australia and notes how in the early 1800’s not every municipality had the same controls. He explains that different areas had different controls but all were basically based around the London Building Act and the fireproofing of new buildings as to avoid events such as the Great Fire of London. From here Lewis mainly focuses on planning and planning issues which I found of great interest.

Lewis discusses in detail the somewhat silent, but ever prevalent part of planning, the paying off of objectors by developers to insure a quick, hassle free approval of different developments. Lewis explains the many different ways in which developers and even objectors have used their situation to financially benefit out of the planning process. He explores the myths and truths around why people object to applications, whether the public should have the right to object, whether it is ok to pay an objector to remove their objection and even objectors demanding money from developers to remove their objections. Lewis explains that these issues can be avoided and that really developers and objectors have the power to be able to negotiate outcomes which will best suit both parties, but the reality is this is not the case!

The focus of the chapter soon switches to local infrastructure, who is responsible for it? Who owns it? And who can claim rights to use it. Lewis explores the issues around infrastructure and how it can cause serious debate, especially now that higher densities are encouraged throughout our cities with the increasing urban sprawl issues that we are currently facing here in Melbourne. Lewis explains that with changing household sizes and higher demand for unit living, more units etc are being built in existing areas and this is putting pressure on existing infrastructure and services to be able to accommodate this. Lewis notes the massive reduction in people living in house together as families etc.

One could go on forever discussing the issues raised by Lewis within this chapter, however it is more productive for me to ask the questions which arise from the themes in this chapter and in which I am sure we all have thought about before.

Questions:

• What are your thoughts on developers paying objectors to withdraw their objections or objectors demanding money from developers to do the same? Do you think this is ethical? What are the possible repercussions from this?
• Why is planning subverted by hidden subsidies and vested interests?
• Would it be better if we completely got rid of planning and purely relied on the Building Regulations? Why?

Reference;

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”, Suburban Backlash, Blooming Books, Hawthorn, ch. 6 (28p)

11. Infrastructure 16th May, 2008 22:34:16   [#] 

Comments

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
-Personally i think the thoughts of developers paying an objector to withdraw is not as unethical as an objector 'holding out' or objecting merely to recieve some sort of personal reimbursements. My thinking has come down to this; if developers are compensating by providing an objector or those affected with some sort of personal reimbursement, what is the harm of that? the objector can freely accept or decline the offer, if they are genuinely affected they can obviously continue with their objections. However when we have an objector who merely objects for some sort of lets say fiscal benefit i do not agree with that, its reminiscent to the man who runs into moving cars for compensation. I do have to say though, this system (unwritten rule) is very similar to bribing...

-I believe planning and the whole 'private vested interest' concept is actually intertwined. Planning as taught to me in rmit is the act or profession to faciliate development, development itself can be divided into the private realm (developers) abnd the public realm (govenrmental bodies). When people are developing properties etc. they do so for their own personal benefits, whether it be to maximise the level of amenity and comfort they can have or to create a development that will sell for a high price on the market. So planning theoritcally speaking is for the community and all that honkey dorey fluff, but we have to realise it is subverted by hidden subsidies and vested interests.
LN  18th May, 2008 20:22:29  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
sorry fo the double post forgot to answer the last bit.

-Planning needs to be aprt of development, we cannot get rid of it completely as planning involves - social, historical, political, environmental and economic aspects aswell (aprt from the actual design etc) these aspects cannot be measured or taken into consideration merely with building regulations. What Victoria needs is a overhaul of the current system we have now, we have a state that is increasing in population size and not enough residential developments, because people are concerned that a housing development might cause inefficiencies with parking and traffic or maybe affect some ring tailed possums, creating a slow and quite annoying process we must consider.
LN  18th May, 2008 20:26:55  

c123 - response to Lewis
I think that there will always be that problem with developers wanting to buy out objectors. I don’t see a problem in it – if the developer puts more money into the development to help the objection – but I don’t think that it is ethical that developers can do that – and make a habit of it – as the poorer lower income people could object to everything to try and get money!!!!
I don’t think that we should get rid of the planning scheme, but i think that their needs to be some more thought into the building regs.

c123  19th May, 2008 21:22:58  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
Two of the main things that i noticed and thought were interesting from this article were the notions of developers effectively purchasing someone's right to object and the other was the discussion around infrastracture. The concept of developers buying off objectors i think would work well for both parties as if the objector can be bought out it would save the developer a great deal of money, and time and also make the process easier for the planner responsible for the development. Although it does raise concerns over whom can object to developments with the sole intent of been payed off. The conversation surrounding infrastructure is also interesting especially considering melbourne's new love of toll ways and the recent eddington report which i believed suggested that the people using the proposed underground railway should be made to somehow foot the bill.
dm  19th May, 2008 23:34:39  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
The whole notion of developers buying off or compensating objectors, and vice versa people objecting to gain access to the ‘payoff pie’ smells so disgusting of self interest – so I have to say I think that at both levels it is not ethical. But how do you control this?? Is another planning control needing to be implemented to stop this behaviour? It seems that the more issues that arise concerning planning matters, the more controls that are put into place to circumvent them – which in turn exacerbates the issue with how long it takes to get planning approvals through – which is another major problem in itself with serious impacts.

I don’t think it is possible to get rid of the planning scheme/system altogether, but it certainly needs to be improved, streamlined and less complicated – which seems to be almost as impossible as not having a system at all. What we need is a big strong hand to take charge of the state (and or country) and make the tough decisions that need to be made for the benefit of all communities. To hell with political backlash – let governments have longer terms to implement plans substantially – the plans which the public voted them in for to implement at election time. Too often government is trying to please everybody but in reality that doesn’t happen and nobody is really pleased with outcomes.

KS  20th May, 2008 13:43:57  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
From my experience, it seems that the grounds on which objectors lodge their complaints are usually around matters which are not taken into consideration by the Rescode decision guidelines. The process appears to be more about allowing people to feel their voice has been heard when in reality, common grounds of objection such as financial loss as a result of development are not considered. For this reason, while developers bribing objectors is not an ideal situation, if a development does not meet the rescode requirements it will not be approved with or without objector input. However, it must be acknowledged that in reality developments which do receive a large numbers of objections will be given a greater level of consideration than those which do not.
JM  20th May, 2008 13:59:38  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
I agree completely with LN. If developers are happy to pay objectors to remove their objections for a proposed development then there is a win-win situation, and it also means that the objection was not significant in the first place. The developer only pays a small fee to get their development proposal through without the hassles of objections, VCAT and the time constraints that go with this; the objector gains a small financial amount for, effectively, a useless objection. If the objector was serious about their complaint then they wouldn’t be paid off to remove their objection, they would see it through. So it all basically works out in the end anyway.
will  20th May, 2008 15:09:24  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
I am not completely convinced either way about the argument, though I realise what ethically the right option is. As discussed earlier in class, some objectors only object for the sake of it. Sure they don't want change but they perhaps don't understand the real issues, such as the need to increase densities. Often objections are of ridiculous nature and hold no planning merit whatsoever. So in this instance I would argue that if objections such as these are slowing the process down, it might be an appropriate way to satisfy the party. Further, I would argue that even though the concept of objections is built around the larger concept of the planning system being a democracy, they are not overly necessary. Sure they may help the responsible authority to have regard to a certain issue in their decision making process, but if the RA can't see that, then they are not doing their job properly. A pay-off in this sense seems like a viable option because if democracy can be swayed by greed or desire for a fist full of clams, what good is it anyway.

However, the idea does have constraints on the developer as individual neighbours or people affected by a development could start objecting just to be paid (as NL mentioned). This would throw the whole process right out as it would now just be about the opportunity for cashola for an objector/landowner. It would make it quite difficult for developers to turn a profit if they are paying off individuals around them. And don't get started on the affect it would have on inflation, and houses now becoming piggy banks.

And what the hell are you thinking completely relying on building regulations - SHUT UP!!!
What the hell have I been doing for the last 4 years! I wasn't going to Uni for the fun times, what the hell are you going to do when you finish this perhaps soon to be obsolete course? Planning indeed, Hmmph!
Duelling McClassy  20th May, 2008 22:48:53  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
I think that it is totally unethical for developers to pay off objectors, or for objectors to demand cash to withdraw their objection.

Planning is political and supposedly democratic. Issues and conflicts of interest are to be expected, but if they are genuine they should not be replacable with money.

Additionally, communication, good governance and good planning should work through these issues in an attempt to achieve a 'win-win' outcome as opposed to a win-lose. This is idealistic, but should be achievable throuugh sound processes.

Planning upholds democracy. It is about people and affects people and places. It should be political and people should be able to get involved to create places that reflect the community - otherwise I think development would be really adhoc in style and standard.

Building regulations seek only to achieve a minimum standard and do not allow people to be actively involved in how their area is shaped.

I think it's important to remember that someone's house is their biggest asset. It is probably what they will retire on and gives them a sense of security. Therefore, how surrounding land is developed or used is an emotional and political thing. People have property rights and planning seeks to uphold these through advertising and review rights and if for no other reason, planning is important to uphold local democracy.
Kelly  21st May, 2008 18:35:10  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
Yes Kelly, while it is totally unethical for developers to pay off objectors and for objectors to demand cash to withdraw their objection, this no doubt happens and will continue to do so under the current system. What can we do? The planning system gives too much power to objectors – who, unlike planners, are only looking out for their own interests and not the community’s – and therefore they can easily exploit the system. It is just something we are going to have to live with until the State Government can be more courageous and create a better system that filters out useless objections from those that are genuine. If an objector actually has a genuine issue with a proposal they won’t be bribed with money, as you allude to, they will seek to have their issue resolved properly.

Your concepts of communication, good governance, good planning, sound processes and so on, generally do work through these issues, but they are not preventing the determined and unethical objectors from making a complaint and seeking monetary gains to remove their objection. This loophole needs to be fixed otherwise more people will catch on and make useless objections in the hope of receiving financial gains, which will completely slow down and reduce the capacity of our planning system to deal with applications in a timely and appropriate manner.
will  23rd May, 2008 14:32:55  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
The idea of developers paying off objectors to major proposals is terrible. It might give the current objector a small financial gain however for the people who may opt to move into the suburb after the development has been approved it is unfair. Yes you might argue that they can find out whether the development has been approved and that it is up to them to do the research but its seems absurd that people can be paid to remain silence. What happened to democracy?

To get rid of the planning scheme altogether and rely on building regulations would be an interesting move but I believe it would just encourage ad hoc development all over Melbourne. The character of an area would not have a safeguard in the planning controls and would rely on people’s good judgement of appropriate development. If you were to get rid of the planning scheme there would surely be numerous community groups who would then try and enforce their own ideals. This would send planning and even our suburbs back into the dark ages! Perhaps a more community friendly planning process would be a better option?
Megan  26th May, 2008 14:01:40  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
i agree with both Kelly and Will, you guys are just so cool! Objectors have by far too much say in the planning process. Objections should be more of a consideration, but the outcome left to be determined by the planner - we are educated for a particular reason, so as to have a wider understanding of development and its implications. Remove that authority and you simply have people making decisions based around personal gain and circumstances rather than what is in the publics interest.

While greater steps could be undertaken to gain input from the local community, ultimately though we should be making the decisions and it should not be a politicized process as is too often the case (think Camberwell).
Edward Croslsand  27th May, 2008 14:49:34  

Lewis, M. 1999, “The Spurious Market”
Good summary by Edward to this long debate. I completely agree with everything he states and couldn't put it better myself. Speak up supply demand, what do you have to say about this controversial issue???
will  28th May, 2008 01:40:55