South Australian government’s ePlanning system causing headaches for councils

It cost millions to develop and was supposed to make building a house easier, but the state’s new planning system has been panned by councils.

The state’s controversial new $40m planning system touted as making it easier and faster to process applications has been panned by councils who say it is inefficient and has increased the cost of doing business.

The Advertiser can also reveal that millions of dollars in application fees paid to the state government have been used to fund the operation of the new digital ePlanning system since its staged launch from July 2020.

The government said the new online portal, and a single planning code against which all development applications are assessed, would make the planning system more efficient.

But the Local Government Association of SA says the new online ePlanning system is “not delivering” on the efficiencies promised.

Surveys of 41 councils found 98 per cent had expressed “ongoing increased costs or resourcing burden” since they were forced to use the new electronic planning system, the LGA said.

The surveys also found:

FIFTY-TWO PER CENT “disagreed or strongly disagreed” with the statement that the ePlanning system was ‘easy to use’ while only 20 per cent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

NEARLY two-thirds of councils disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the system had simplified and sped up processes and saved users time and money;

TEN PER CENT agreed the new system had “improved consistency” of planning decisions, while 58 per cent were noncommittal.

The LGA wants an independent review of the new planning system “against the promises (sic) benefits of the change”.

It said inefficiencies were leading to “reduced customer service” and increasing time “verifying, assessing and determining basic applications”.

Major metropolitan and country councils – who handle 90 per cent of applications – have only been using the new system since March last year in the final phase of a staged rollout of the system.

Supplied Editorial LGA president Charles Sturt Council Mayor Angela Evans

The planning overhaul, which started in 2017 and suffered a $18m cost blowout, was plagued with delays and concerns councils were unprepared to use the new system.

There was also criticism of the government financing the reforms using $23m from an open space fund.

LGA SA president Angela Evans said while councils were working to help improve the system they were reporting ongoing inefficiencies and increased costs.

“The fees returned to councils aren’t covering the cost of administering the system or the increased resourcing, and this makes it challenging for councils to meet legislative requirements,” she said. “Ideally we would like to see lodgement fees returned to councils and to get rid of the ePlanning levy.”

Councils are each paying a mandatory levy of up to $60,000 a year to pay for the new system.

This comes despite the government revealing it has collected $31.2m in development application fees since July 2020 with $11m invested in the planning system.

The remaining $20m has been distributed to councils.

A spokesman for the government’s Planning and Land Use Services said more than 400 updates had been made to the system based on council feedback.

“Importantly, the ePlanning portal has shifted responsibility away from local government in a number of key areas, such as front counter lodgements, with applications now lodged electronically and often by the applicants themselves rather than councils. This frees up resources to manage the assessment of council applications,” he said.

“Given the increase in development activity and the relatively new system, it’s too early to determine the overall impact on councils, however (the) government will continue to work with local government and update the system as necessarily to achieve the objective of a simple, cost-effective platform that benefits both developers and councils.”

In August building certifiers claimed the new system was cumbersome and had “blown-out” processing times and costs.