News / Planning
Council scraps building design scorecard ‘failure’
The Design Excellence Scorecard was criticised as undemocratic because it allowed developers to bypass decisions by elected councillors
Mark Phillips
Friday, February 11, 2022
BRUNSWICK residents will regain the right to seek a council review of all controversial planning applications after Moreland council dumped a design scorecard that has been criticised as undemocratic.
Councillors voted on Wednesday to discontinue the Design Excellence Scorecard which allowed developers to bypass resident objections in a trade-off for better design outcomes.
Although it has been rarely used during a three-year trial period, opponents say the scorecard is undemocratic by removing elected councillors from decision making, and has encouraged excessive building heights above planning limits.
The narrow vote by councillors on Wednesday – Mayor Mark Riley was forced to use his casting vote to break a four-four deadlock – will see the Design Excellence Scorecard relegated to the status of an optional checklist, while all applications with 10 or more objections will need to be decided by the council’s Planning and Related Matters committee.
Joanna Stanley of the Brunswick Residents Network, who presented a petition of more than 350 signatures to the council meeting, said the decision was a massive win, but she was concerned about the retention of a “zombie” scorecard process that could be reinstated by a future council.
“It’s a total win because it actually gets rid of delegates deciding controversial developments, and they should always be decided by elected councillors,” she said.
Three year trial
Introduced as a trial in February 2019, the Design Excellence Scorecard has allowed developments to be approved through delegation by council staff rather than elected councillors.
It emerged out of a need to encourage better outcomes for medium and high density developments in building design and materials, environmentally sustainable design and building performance, building accessibility and community benefit.
Developers can negotiate with council staff to trade-off some planning restrictions if they meet the scorecard requirements.
Although community consultation is required and objections can be heard, the scorecard has attracted criticism for delegating approval to council staff and bypassing the normal PARM meeting attended by elected councillors. The incentive for developers to come forward with projects that meet the design excellence standards is that they can be approved more quickly under delegation.
The trial of the scorecard was extended several times, each time with additional requirements to enhance the rights of objectors.
Since the trial was first begun in 2019, only seven developments have met the requirements of the scorecard. They represent less than 1% of between 1200 and 1400 planning applications determined under delegation each year.
Outcomes achieved as a result of the scorecard have included 36 affordable housing dwellings, 285 dwellings meeting accessibility standards, and an average 7.5 star energy rating. However, some developments approved under delegation through using the scorecard have been allowed to exceed usual height controls.
Council officers wanted to make the scorecard permanent with some further tweaks, arguing in a report to Wednesday night’s meeting that it would lead to better development outcomes.
“The idea that you can use democratic oversight as a bargaining chip for supposed high quality developments is highly problematic.”
– Cr James Conlan
“While the scorecard only influences a small proportion of applications, it assists Council in positively influencing high quality planning outcomes in Moreland, that would not otherwise be achieved through traditional planning decision-making mechanisms,” a report authored by Director of Place and Environment Joseph Tabacco said.
“Importantly, the scorecard is not a tool that can be used to trade off unacceptable planning outcomes. Applications that do not firstly satisfy the planning scheme would not be eligible to be considered against the scorecard tool.”
Scorecard becomes a ‘checklist’
The decision adopted by the council on Wednesday will ensure that any development that has 10 or more objections will always be dealt with by the Planning and Related Matters Committee of elected developers, regardless of its merits.
But it retains the design scorecard as a non-mandatory “checklist” for developers.
Cr Angelica Panopoulos acknowledged the concerns of residents and said the new approach was basically a return to the old planning rules.
“This was a trial that was one tool, now let’s look to see how else we can get better developments in Moreland,” she said.
Her motion was backed by Cr James Conlan, who said he had always been concerned about the way the design scorecard created an incentive to bypass decisions by councillors.
“The idea that you can use democratic oversight as a bargaining chip for supposed high quality developments is highly problematic in my view,” he said. “The scorecard process rests on the assumption that democracy is the thing getting in the way of high-quality development and I do think that’s wrong.
Cr Sue Bolton, who unsuccessfully led an attempt to completely remove all references to the scorecard from the council planning scheme, said it had failed to deliver more sustainable and affordable housing as promised, while leaving residents feeling disenfranchised.
She said she was concerned that the council had only adopted a half-measure leaving a risk that the right of councillors to vote on developments could be removed in future.
“I think it is the democratic right of a community to have a say over their community,” she said.
“Maybe it allows objections and notifications, but it [the scorecard] is a form of fast-tracking … through the planning meeting process and it’s also allowing developers to use all of these good things like environmental sustainability as a bargaining chip to get extra levels on their buildings.”
Not a fast-track process: Mayor
Mayor Mark Riley rejected descriptions of the design scorecard as a fast-track process. Although he also voted in favour of discontinuing the scorecard, he argued that it had delivered good outcomes in the three years it had been used.
“We tried to do something, we’ve heard from the community, I don’t share all their concerns … I’m happy to support this motion [but] I’m not happy that we’ve tried to be innovative, tried to show leadership and people don’t value the benefits for people with disabilities as much as I do, they don’t value the affordable arrangements as much as I do.”
Ms Stanley said a quicker pathway to approval of their projects should never have been offered as an incentive for developers to pursue design excellence. Instead, she said the principles of the design scorecard should be permanently embedded in the Moreland planning scheme for all developments.
“We have now got a good opportunity with the state election coming up [for the council] to lobby future governments and planning ministers to adopt elements of good design, specifically social housing and accessible housing, into the planning scheme. That’s what they should have been doing for the past eight years rather than seeking out alternative pathways to approval.”
News / Planning
Council scraps building design scorecard ‘failure’
The Design Excellence Scorecard was criticised as undemocratic because it allowed developers to bypass decisions by elected councillors
Mark Phillips
Friday, February 11, 2022
BRUNSWICK residents will regain the right to seek a council review of all controversial planning applications after Moreland council dumped a design scorecard that has been criticised as undemocratic.
Councillors voted on Wednesday to discontinue the Design Excellence Scorecard which allowed developers to bypass resident objections in a trade-off for better design outcomes.
Although it has been rarely used during a three-year trial period, opponents say the scorecard is undemocratic by removing elected councillors from decision making, and has encouraged excessive building heights above planning limits.
The narrow vote by councillors on Wednesday – Mayor Mark Riley was forced to use his casting vote to break a four-four deadlock – will see the Design Excellence Scorecard relegated to the status of an optional checklist, while all applications with 10 or more objections will need to be decided by the council’s Planning and Related Matters committee.
Joanna Stanley of the Brunswick Residents Network, who presented a petition of more than 350 signatures to the council meeting, said the decision was a massive win, but she was concerned about the retention of a “zombie” scorecard process that could be reinstated by a future council.
“It’s a total win because it actually gets rid of delegates deciding controversial developments, and they should always be decided by elected councillors,” she said.
Three year trial
Introduced as a trial in February 2019, the Design Excellence Scorecard has allowed developments to be approved through delegation by council staff rather than elected councillors.
It emerged out of a need to encourage better outcomes for medium and high density developments in building design and materials, environmentally sustainable design and building performance, building accessibility and community benefit.
Developers can negotiate with council staff to trade-off some planning restrictions if they meet the scorecard requirements.
Although community consultation is required and objections can be heard, the scorecard has attracted criticism for delegating approval to council staff and bypassing the normal PARM meeting attended by elected councillors. The incentive for developers to come forward with projects that meet the design excellence standards is that they can be approved more quickly under delegation.
The trial of the scorecard was extended several times, each time with additional requirements to enhance the rights of objectors.
Since the trial was first begun in 2019, only seven developments have met the requirements of the scorecard. They represent less than 1% of between 1200 and 1400 planning applications determined under delegation each year.
Outcomes achieved as a result of the scorecard have included 36 affordable housing dwellings, 285 dwellings meeting accessibility standards, and an average 7.5 star energy rating. However, some developments approved under delegation through using the scorecard have been allowed to exceed usual height controls.
Council officers wanted to make the scorecard permanent with some further tweaks, arguing in a report to Wednesday night’s meeting that it would lead to better development outcomes.
“The idea that you can use democratic oversight as a bargaining chip for supposed high quality developments is highly problematic.”
– Cr James Conlan
“While the scorecard only influences a small proportion of applications, it assists Council in positively influencing high quality planning outcomes in Moreland, that would not otherwise be achieved through traditional planning decision-making mechanisms,” a report authored by Director of Place and Environment Joseph Tabacco said.
“Importantly, the scorecard is not a tool that can be used to trade off unacceptable planning outcomes. Applications that do not firstly satisfy the planning scheme would not be eligible to be considered against the scorecard tool.”
Scorecard becomes a ‘checklist’
The decision adopted by the council on Wednesday will ensure that any development that has 10 or more objections will always be dealt with by the Planning and Related Matters Committee of elected developers, regardless of its merits.
But it retains the design scorecard as a non-mandatory “checklist” for developers.
Cr Angelica Panopoulos acknowledged the concerns of residents and said the new approach was basically a return to the old planning rules.
“This was a trial that was one tool, now let’s look to see how else we can get better developments in Moreland,” she said.
Her motion was backed by Cr James Conlan, who said he had always been concerned about the way the design scorecard created an incentive to bypass decisions by councillors.
“The idea that you can use democratic oversight as a bargaining chip for supposed high quality developments is highly problematic in my view,” he said. “The scorecard process rests on the assumption that democracy is the thing getting in the way of high-quality development and I do think that’s wrong.
Cr Sue Bolton, who unsuccessfully led an attempt to completely remove all references to the scorecard from the council planning scheme, said it had failed to deliver more sustainable and affordable housing as promised, while leaving residents feeling disenfranchised.
She said she was concerned that the council had only adopted a half-measure leaving a risk that the right of councillors to vote on developments could be removed in future.
“I think it is the democratic right of a community to have a say over their community,” she said.
“Maybe it allows objections and notifications, but it [the scorecard] is a form of fast-tracking … through the planning meeting process and it’s also allowing developers to use all of these good things like environmental sustainability as a bargaining chip to get extra levels on their buildings.”
Not a fast-track process: Mayor
Mayor Mark Riley rejected descriptions of the design scorecard as a fast-track process. Although he also voted in favour of discontinuing the scorecard, he argued that it had delivered good outcomes in the three years it had been used.
“We tried to do something, we’ve heard from the community, I don’t share all their concerns … I’m happy to support this motion [but] I’m not happy that we’ve tried to be innovative, tried to show leadership and people don’t value the benefits for people with disabilities as much as I do, they don’t value the affordable arrangements as much as I do.”
Ms Stanley said a quicker pathway to approval of their projects should never have been offered as an incentive for developers to pursue design excellence. Instead, she said the principles of the design scorecard should be permanently embedded in the Moreland planning scheme for all developments.
“We have now got a good opportunity with the state election coming up [for the council] to lobby future governments and planning ministers to adopt elements of good design, specifically social housing and accessible housing, into the planning scheme. That’s what they should have been doing for the past eight years rather than seeking out alternative pathways to approval.”