Results of a survey of Gippsland referral authorities

1. Results of a survey of Gippsland referral authorities Ryan Thomas

2. Referral authorities • Country Fire Authority • Department of Primary Industries • Department of Sustainability and Environment • East Gippsland Water • Environment Protection Authority • Gippsland Ports • Gippsland Water • Melbourne Water • South Gippsland Water • Southern Rural Water • VicRoads • West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority • Westernport Water • Worksafe

3. Survey questions • The councils they interact with • The number of referrals received • How they went about processing planning referrals • The software programs they used and how they recorded information • The amount of fulltime equivalents used to respond to referrals • The use of standard agreements • The impediments faced in processing referrals • Suggestions to how processes could be made more efficient

4. Efficiency opportunities

5. Opportunity 1 – Electronic referral lodgement Findings • Referral lodgement process is mixed – some council’s lodge applications by SPEAR, some by email, some by mail and some use a combination of all forms. • Most referral authorities identified their preference for electronic submissions due to documents being easier to upload onto their electronic workflow operating system, rather than scanning.

6. Electronic referral lodgement (cont) • Most referral authorities mentioned that lodgement of referrals SPEAR is the most efficient lodgement form. A few referral authorities highlighted that SPEAR can duplicate existing processes, but that it would be more efficient when SPEAR referrals increase. SPEAR efficiency reasons included: • Electronic copies received – easier to upload on electronic workflow operating system; • Less paperwork; • No need for response to be sent back by letter; • Faster transmission of response; • No need for data entry; and • Applicants are able to track referrals through SPEAR which limits the amount of phone calls received.

7. Electronic referral lodgement (cont) Recommendations • That SPEAR is increasingly used by councils to refer applications due to its efficiency potential. • If council is not active in SPEAR then it is suggested that electronic lodgement is supported rather than hard copy lodgement. • Investigate how to increase the use of SPEAR. • Encourage ongoing training to referral authorities on how to best use SPEAR. • Promote SPEAR system useability improvements.

8. Opportunity 2 – Informative cover letters Finding • A number of referral authorities commented that at times referrals can provide insufficient information. This includes not being sent required information and being unclear to what provision the request is made under. This leads to further information requests and places administration burden on the referral authority.

9. Informative cover letters (cont) Recommendations • Council’s should consider implementing improved referral cover letters. Referral letters could: • Provide a checklist of documents provided which will ensure that documents are not absent and therefore limit further information requests. • Make the purpose of the referral clear by identifying whether referral or notice response is sought, under what planning scheme provision it is referred and detailing why notice is sought. This could improve the referral authority’s administration employees understanding of the nature of the referral request and provide the opportunity to establish more efficient delegation processes. For example application notices may only need to be seen by administration staff; and • List other bodies referred to under section 52 and 55 to allow referral authorities to discuss conditions. • Include a GIS image with subject property identified with a red edge to allow referral authorities to conveniently locate property.

10. Opportunity 3 - Better targeting referrals Findings • Some referral provisions under Cause 66.04 and 66.06 of Planning Schemes may only add low value. • Scope exists for better targeting referrals by improving referral provisions and increasing the use of standard agreements and exemptions to overlay schedules.

11. Better targeting referrals (cont) Recommendations • Referral authorities and council’s review the value of their Clause 66.04 and 66.06 provisions and consider opportunities to remove or amend provisions. • Referral authorities and council’s to review zones and overlays to reduce referral by: • Exempting development types that may not be of concern • Establishing standard agreements or MOU’s and recording on the DPCD standard agreement page

12. Opportunity 4 – Pre-application involvement Finding • Pre-application discussions with referral authorities may increase efficiency Recommendation • For large or technical developments, councils should seek the input of referral authorities so particular issues can be sorted at the design stage, therefore achieving better planning results and faster application processing.

13. Opportunity 5 – Information sharing Finding • There is scope for increased information sharing between referral authorities. Recommendation • Investigate the demand and value for a yearly workshop between referral authority and council planners aimed at sharing best practices and increasing the understanding of each others business.

14. Implementation to date • Electronic referrals • City of Melbourne talk • Workshop on moving to electronic referrals in the region. • Informative cover letters • Workshop on the development of a best practice cover letter • Better targeting referrals • Reviewing Baw Baw’s DSE referral provisions • Establishing a template and process to assist councils and referral authorities to review local referral provision • Workshop on better targeting referrals • Pre-application involvement for large or technical developments • Increased information sharing • Set up this forum to provide opportunities for discussion

15. Thank you Ryan Thomas – Regional Planner DPCD Phone: 5172 2534 Email: ryan.thomas@dpcd.vic.gov.au