FAQ

In order to amend a principal LEP it is necessary to make another LEP (often referred to as an amending LEP).

The process for preparing an amending LEP involves a formal planning process which includes the preparation of a planning proposal.

On 27 June 2019, Council adopted its 2019/2020 Fees and Charges, which set out the fees that Council may charge and recover for an approved fee for the services it provides.

Council’s pricing policy within its adopted fees and charges for requests to amend Coffs Harbour LEP 2013 is based on the ‘User Pays Principle’ (i.e. services where individual costs can be determined and met by the user of the service). Under ‘full cost-recovery pricing’, the price for the service is set to recover the total operating costs, both direct and indirect, of providing this service.

Under the user pays principle, fees are introduced to offset the cost of service provision, in order to support the provision of services, and to alleviate the burden that would otherwise be unfairly placed upon the wider rate-paying community.

In the case when a request to amend Council’s LEP benefits a single or limited number of land owners, most Councils ask that those who benefit to pay the costs of this process.

When reviewing fees and charges, it is important to note that each Council has a different methodology, with various inclusions and exclusions. At face value, most Councils have provided a base rate, however most use the ‘cost agreement option’ to negotiate a quotation and cost payment option for complex LEP Amendments (i.e. rezoning land).

The cost agreement is determined on a case-by-case basis at the beginning of the planning proposal process. 

This involves understanding the complexity of the site, criteria the proponent must meet, scope of work that must be provided, involvement of multi-disciplinary teams, and anticipated timeframes. 

The planning proposal process involves project management, assessment of technical reports, community and agency consultation, and detailed administrative functions (e.g. Council reports, briefings, spatial mapping, and negotiations with state government agencies on legal drafting, public exhibition and notification).

Therefore it is difficult to make direct comparisons with each Council as part of this review.

The fees that Council receives from proponent-led requests to amend Coffs Harbour LEP 2013 are used to resource the amendment process.

A reduction in fees could place additional burden on existing planning staff, and may delay the finalisation of other projects within Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  An additional risk is that ratepayers that don’t receive any gain from the LEP amendment are unfairly burdened if Council funds the short fall for the true costs of this service.

If Council receives numerous requests to amend Coffs Harbour LEP 2013 at the same time, the timeframes for processing the requests will be considerable given that the fees associated with the requests are used to resource staff.