report

Local Government Building Approvals

Audit finding – LG entities adequately assessed permit applications, but can improve their processes

All 4 LG entities ensured applications met the Act’s requirements before issuing a permit.  However, we identified some weak controls which reduce the transparency and accountability of permit decisions. LG entities also receive and assess applications differently which affect the consistency and efficiency of the approvals process.

LG entities only issued permits when legislative requirements were met

The LG entities had suitable permit systems and processes in place to receive applications and assess them against requirements in the Act (Appendix 1). Their systems and checklists prompted staff to complete step-by-step checks of all applications. We reviewed 100 permit applications across the 4 LG entities and found processes were followed to check that applications:

  • were complete and included plans, fees and other supporting documents such as engineering reports and relevant insurances
  • met requirements for any specific conditions like owner builder or health approvals
  • had an appropriate bushfire attack level assessment for buildings within a bushfire prone area
  • contained correct information on the builder, surveyor and the applicant.

This ensured permits were issued only when applications contained the supporting documents and approvals needed under the Act. 

Weak controls may lead to inappropriate permit approvals

Conflicts of interest are not recorded and managed transparently

We found none of the LG entities recorded actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest that arose when assessing permit applications. LG entities told us that staff only declared conflicts of interest verbally, to their supervisor, who then assigned the application to someone else. As a result, we were not able to determine if conflicts of interest were declared and managed appropriately. It is good practice to record conflicts of interest and actions taken to manage them.

Conflicts of interest may arise for assessment staff when they:

  • are in relationships, or familiar with builders or owners. This is more likely when staff live in the local government area or have worked at the LG entity for some time
  • have had past grievances with an owner, builder or private surveyor.

We note that LG entity staff complete an annual declaration on conflicts to comply with the Local Government Act 1995. However, these declarations did not cover conflicts of interest relating to permits.

Conflicts of interest can lead to biased or improper assessments. During the audit, the LG entities acknowledged these risks and said they would consider processes to record assessed conflicts of interest for each application.

Inadequate approval controls increase the risk of unauthorised issue of permits

Joondalup and Mandurah did not have adequate controls over the issue of permits. We found:

  • Joondalup had 9 different positions (including administration officers and personal assistants) authorised to approve permits. Joondalup advised it is reviewing these delegations to remove any unnecessary or excessive delegated authority.
  • At Mandurah, permit system users could approve and issue permits without delegated authority to do so. Although Mandurah requires its surveyors to sign a monthly declaration stating they completed the applications, this does not fully mitigate the risk of unauthorised permit approvals in the system.

Processes and systems differ across LG entities which leads to inefficiencies

Applications are lodged differently

The process to apply for a permit and pay fees varied across the LG entities we reviewed. For example:

  • although all the LG entities allowed applicants to submit and track applications online, Joondalup required one-off applicants to apply by email or over the counter
  • the LG entities used different ways to pay application fees. Gosnells charged fees via a monthly account, while Joondalup sent email invoices with credit card or BPAY options.

Builders told us that some LG entities did not accept emailed applications and only accepted in person or posted applications, and had different document requirements and payment methods. They spoke about the inefficiencies, confusion and delays this created in applying for permits, particularly for builders who lodge applications across multiple LG entities.

In July 2015, the State provided around $2.5 million to B&E to develop a centralised e-lodgement system to provide better access and consistency for lodgement and assessment of applications. The system had not been developed despite an implementation date by 2017-18, due to other priorities. B&E discussed its system proposal with 11 LG entities in February 2019, which together issued about 50% of permits in 2017-18. B&E told us that the LG entities were not supportive of the proposal as they had already modified their own systems and processes.

LG entities assessed certified applications with varying rigour, creating uncertainty for applicants

The LG entities assessed certified applications with varying rigour. Three limited their assessment to a high level review of the completeness of applications, whereas Gosnells sometimes reviewed information, such as the Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC), in more detail when it had concerns about compliance with the Code, or applications contained errors. Builders we spoke with told us about the impact of this on their operations. While we found these different practices reduced the consistency of approval processes across the LG entities it did not impact the timeliness of approvals. Gosnells still assessed most of these applications within the required 10 days. The Act does not require LG entities to check the CDC or prohibit them from doing so.

Two LG entities incorrectly recorded application processing times

Albany and Joondalup incorrectly paused and stopped the clock when assessing applications. These practices can result in misleading information on the number of days taken to issue permits. We found:

  • Albany paused the clock for informal requests. This occurred in 4 of the 25 applications we reviewed. Other LG entities only paused the clock for formal requests, which is consistent with the Act. We found that despite this incorrect practice, Albany issued nearly all permits within 10 and 25 days. Albany told us it no longer pauses the clock for informal requests
  • 3 LG entities stopped the clock when they issued the permit. In contrast, Joondalup stopped the clock when the surveyor completed the assessment but issued the permit only after a review of the assessment. In the last 2 financial years in Joondalup, this resulted in a time lag of 0 to 80 days for 1,231 certified applications, with only 17 permits issued after 10 days. Joondalup advised they had discontinued this practice since January 2019.

Back to Top