An exploration of how the current approach to planning applications in NSW failed the Northern Beaches.

If you’ve missed the recent commentary regarding Northern Beaches Council’s rejection of The Joey’s application to extend trading hours you’ve either been living under a rock, not following the news, or both. In short, Northern Beaches Council denied an application to extend trading hours from 4pm to 11pm despite receiving 132 community submissions for the proposal, with only 7? submissions against – with The Sydney Morning Herald proposing that the negative response was led by a serial complainer.?

The Premier Chris Minns organised a meeting with the applicants, Ben May and Rob Domjen, to understand what had transpired. Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy John Graham was clear on his position when he outlined “When the nearest house is more than half a kilometre away, and separated by a golf course, it begs the question: what is the definition of ‘a neighbour’?”

The applicants are heading off to the Land and Environment Court to challenge Council’s decision. Northern Beaches Council itself has stated that they will review the decision, although the applicants have questions of the success of that review. The objectors have engaged Special Counsel Gary Green of Pikes & Verekers Lawyers to keep a close eye on the progress of anything that may overturn the decision to reject the application.?

At every turn, the decision to deny the application has consumed unnecessary time and resources from all involved. When this takes place, questions must be asked about why this has taken place and how can we overcome this systemic failure of the planning system??

To overcome such failure, we need to take a view of the overall impact, who it impacts, and how they are impacted.?

When you’re standing on the shore of Australia’s east coast, and you’re looking out to sea, what is it that you’re looking at???

• The sun rising over the horizon?
• A nice surf with slight offshore wind, perfect for a surf with mates.?
• Sea country, which carries with it the songlines and lessons from millennia of custodianship by Australia’s First Peoples.?
• The vitally important trade routes for Australia’s deep-sea export and import industries.?
• One of the greatest concerns and indicators for climate change, being the changing sea temperatures.?

Each of the above is correct and they are, in some cases, conflicting. And that is ok. It is the natural result of a system that involves a range of actors each with their own perspective. With each different perspective comes a different context, and ultimately a different value proposition.?

The Approval/Compliance component of planning has always struggled. Regulatory planners and strategic planners don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye.?

Regulatory planners have a role that is largely framed around reducing “conflicts” between varying land uses, using codified value/nuisance/disruption based factors.? They are arbitrary and can be subject to the old “squeaky gate gets the oil” conundrum.?

The community input mechanism is generally crude – based on submissions.? This process is observed as attracting detractors, and some on the supporter end of the scale – those in the middle tending to silence.?

This distorts the impact narrative.? All development “shocks” the way a place operates, and our existing frameworks should be supporting that shock like suspension in a car. But as the case of The Joey’s application has highlighted – it has further exacerbated, highlighted and intensified the impact on the full range of actors who are now involved. Needlessly.??

The lack of a common framing of the way a development, in both construction and operations, flows through the system we call “a place”, leads to narrow, short-term considerations and distorted weightings of specific factors.??

While the planning rules and compliance codes may work for non-contentious, deemed-to-comply developments, once a contentious threshold is met – another multi-perspective and multi-dimensional process is necessary.???

Systems framing and thinking is the key, and taking this approach can deliver an impact all parties can align on.?

On a crude, back-of-the-envelope assessment of how the values of the different actors are impacted by extending the trading hours of The Joey we know:?

• Residents: want lifestyle and convenience.?
• Patrons: want enjoyable hospitality offers that align with their lifestyle.?
• Employees: want sustainable hours of work (especially during the cost-of-living crisis).??
• Suppliers: want to be able to provide goods/services.?
• Businesses: want to trade in a way that increases revenue, provides business resilience, and showcases their expertise.?
• Council: ensure local communities run as smoothly and efficiently as possible.?

Council’s decision to deny The Joey’s application doesn't deliver on any of those values. It appeals to the objection of seven people, who represent a meagre 5% of respondents.?

If instead we understand those actors, and their values, it helps us to make sense of the complex system and what we are trying to achieve.

We can identify the impact on them using a logic model that links their value to the overarching impact goal for the community. We can avoid systemic failure and move toward respectful dialogue and supportive co-existence.?

Utilising a logic model helps to develop consistent understanding & pattern language on a system shock, who it impacts and how they are impacted. It provides an objective view of subjective content. It provides a platform for safe conversations that include a full diversity of perspectives and values.?

It is possible that all future applications will be values driven and impact aligned. It is possible that a mere application for extending trading hours won’t require the involvement of The Premier, nor the significant media coverage, nor the countless hours of expense, stress and worry from all parties.?

It is possible, but only if we start by understanding the impact we seek, the shock to the system and building impact literacy into all planning and discourse. When we do that we will prevent the squeaky gate syndrome, and the 132 supporters voices will be heard well above the seven objectors.?

When the Premier and a Minister are becoming entangled in the planning decisions of a council, the system is clearly failing. To prevent future failures the time to shift our approach and deliver positive impact through a whole-of-system understanding is now.?

Authored by Toby Dawson of Tomorrow Together with contributions from Martin Farley of Creating Preferred Futures .

Tomorrow Together and Creating Preferred Futures form a collaboration of impact-driven advisory firms.

A collaborative that is innovating, disrupting and transforming delivery value to create preferred futures.

?