Quote:
Originally Posted by Addick
..
As a brief aside, when I was asked to consider ways to provide developers with incentives to provide additional amenities one of the best incentives I came up with was: Let a third party review planning applications instead of planners from the City.
The role of planners and the planning system is complicated and, to be honest, I'd have to really think about it before I could provide you with an answer. In terms of development control (i.e. processing applications) my take on the role of planners stems from the British system. Planners are there to consider any and all relevant material planning considerations (incl. statutory guidelines and plans) and judge the project on its planning merits.
|
So, why not eliminate planning departments' policing function completely then? If planners, engineers and architects are all bound by their professional ethics and standards of practice, why is reviewing professional work by the administration is necessary? What makes a reviewing planner, engineer, architect (often one-two years out of college) better than another planner, engineer, architect?
What you brought up is the same thing that bothers many people in the industry, government and general public: who and how should have the authority to decide in matters that are so subjective in nature? Many times I've seen planners presenting a fully-compliant application to Council and being challenged by aldermen on why they shouldn't have approved it. And the opposite: when a planner goes outside of the box and recommends something for approval based on relaxed guidelines, he/she is being attacked for doing so by the aldermen who don't agree with the rationale. I am sure you can relate to these scenarios.
It is never 100% right or wrong. There are always different and very subjective views on planning principles and policies, including housing. Which is why I get so frustrated when people see it so black and white.