You are here: Agriculture » About Agriculture » Projects and Activities » Streamlining and Property Management Systems » Evaluation Report

Evaluation Report

Analysis of council planning processes involving Farm Plans or intensification of agricultural practices in rural zones

Background
Purpose
Aim
Involvement
Analysing planning processes
Process overview
The current approach
The issue
Process analysis – methodology
Results
Conclusion
Summary
Recommendations
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Basic Planning Process – with and without problematic steps
Appendix 2 – Evaluation Findings – Case Study Process Maps
Appendix 3 – Streamlined Planning Process
Appendix 4 – Guidance documents

Background

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to communicate the results of efficiency analysis undertaken on council planning permit applications involving Farm Plans or intensification of agricultural practices in rural zones.

Aim

This document aims to highlight:

The results of efficiency analysis
Recommendations as a result of this analysis.

Involvement

The information and insights presented in this report have been developed as part of the Streamlining & Property Management Systems Project (S&PMS Project) in conjunction with staff from Victorian rural and peri-urban councils.

Councils involved in this analysis wanted to:

Improve the efficiency of the way they manage and assess development applications in rural zones, particularly those involving Farm Plans
Enhance the long-term natural resource management outcomes from rural developments
Fulfil all council planning requirements while reducing their risk of VCAT and legal liability risk
Improve strategic alliances with relevant support agencies on technical issues in rural zones
Facilitate good relationships between ratepayers and the agencies that can support them to implement their Farm Plans.

Analysing planning processes

Process overview

Planning processes involve different phases:

Pre-application (P1)
Application (P2)
Assessment (P3)
Approval (P4)
Implementation (including compliance) (P5).

During each of these five phases information is exchanged between applicants and council staff. This information communicates the intent and details of the development proposal requested and must fulfil the necessary requirements of the planning regulations required by council.

The current approach

'Farm Plans' (e.g. Whole Farm Plan, Land Management Plan) are commonly used by Victorian councils as a tool to enhance this information exchange and their ability to assess planning applications in rural zones.

The Farm Plan (FP) provides a structure by which property owners wanting to develop their rural land can convey to council the natural resource management (NRM) features of their property, their rural business aspirations for the property, and the impacts their proposed rural development might have on these natural resources and the surrounding community.

The current planning process involving FPs and intensification of agricultural activities in rural zones is shown in Appendix 1.

The issue

Rural zone planning applications that propose a dwelling, removal of native vegetation or intensification of an animal industry can create technical problems and confusion for council staff and applicants.

The type of technical information needed to assess the legitimacy of a development proposal in rural zones is poorly defined in the planning regulations and as such council staff are often unsure of what information to request of applicants to satisfy these planning regulations.

Research by the S&PMS Project and its municipal partners has shown anecdotally that these types of applications have potential for efficiency improvements where this technical information is clarified and the process supported by key technical staff.
These types of applications are therefore the focus of this document, the streamlining analysis and service delivery recommendations.

Process analysis – methodology

The analysis of planning processes involving FPs has involved anecdotal and desktop studies of twenty development applications, relating to dwelling applications and intensification of agricultural enterprises in rural zones.

Anecdotal evidence was gathered via personal communications with five key council staff and applicants. Desktop evidence was gathered via a review of 15 council files that involved FPs within the planning process. The results of these analyses are shown in Appendix 2.

The anecdotal analysis provided qualitative, indicative results that identified some of the problematic areas of the planning process. These areas were then analysed in more detail via the desktop study.

The desktop analysis was based on the current planning process, as shown in Appendix 1, and the path the process actually followed in that particular application. The basic efficiency of the process was measured by the number of internal and external interactions council staff had with applicants and other parties and the length of time taken to complete the planning process. The quality of the information provided in the planning application was collected anecdotally or via file notes from key council staff.

These results were then analysed to determine how and why some applications proceeded more efficiently and to a higher technical standard than others.

Results

Results showed that the most problematic area of the process was during the assessment phase.

If insufficient information was provided, council had to request further information from the applicant until all the required information had been provided. This 'further information loop' was the key stumbling block for process efficiency.

The most beneficial phases of the process were seen to be the pre-application and application phases. Where resources were committed to communicating with applicants early in the process, good mutually satisfying planning proposals were developed.

Analysis demonstrated:

The absence of guidance documentation and/or pre-application discussions created confusion regarding information and process expectations causing those involved to enter the 'further information required' cycle, adding unnecessary steps, time and angst to the process.
The inclusion of guidance documents early in the process (e.g. checklists, pre-application or on-site meetings) clarified information expectations and reduced the need for 'further information' requests, thereby reducing the number of interactions between council staff and applicants and the overall time taken to process the planning application. (See Appendix 3 for streamlined process diagram).

This research has shown that the streamlined process can:

significantly reduce the number of interactions between applicants and municipal staff (up to 70% reduction)
significantly reduce the time spent processing the application (up to 70%)
improve the clarity of information requirements for applicants and planners
facilitate the development of better quality applications and Farm Plans
facilitate links to ongoing technical support services for farmers.

This streamlined process was seen as achievable, relevant and valuable to stakeholders.

The key improvements of clarity of position, content and process all proved invaluable to the streamlined process, resulting in a clear, shorter, relatively simple path for both the applicant and council to follow.

This streamlined process has been developed into a Service Delivery Guideline, ('How to achieve a Streamlined Process') to clearly communicate and clarify the information expectations of all parties involved in the process during each of the five phases of the planning process. This document can be found online at: http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/about-agriculture/streamlining-property-management

Conclusion

Summary

This document has highlighted the results of analysis on council planning processes that involve Farm Plans or intensification of agricultural enterprises in rural zones in Victoria.

The key to streamlining planning processes involving Farm Plans and intensification of agricultural enterprises in rural zones was to commit resources to communicating with applicants early in the process, through pre-application meetings or good guidance materials. Where these resources were used good mutually satisfying planning proposals were developed.

Recommendations

It is recommended that councils provide:

Relevant resources and procedures within their reception and planning departments to assist applicants and staff to develop and assess good quality planning applications in rural zones.
Relevant printed/online resources (e.g. checklists, etc) to guide applicants and staff on the required information content of planning applications in rural zones (See Appendix 4).
The opportunity for applicants to meet planning staff for pre-application meetings to discuss planning applications in rural zones.
The opportunity for staff and applicants to work collaboratively with external service providers or agencies to develop and assess the technical information required for planning applications in rural zones.
Encouragement to staff and applicants to implement these recommendations to improve process efficiency.

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Basic Planning Process – with and without problematic steps

Appendix 2 – Evaluation Findings – Case Study Process Maps

Appendix 3 – Streamlined Planning Process

Appendix 4 – Guidance documents