Medieval Planning Reform

Its full steam ahead for Frank and the robber barons.
Undeterred by over 180 individual citizens and 71 community groups who put pen to paper, objecting to their being removed from local planning processes, NSW Labor continues to shaft the public interest. Subverting and/or supplanting local Councils, we are to have at least two extra layers of (Ministerially appointed) planning authorities (PACs & JRPPs) who may be delegated the less juicy pickings from the Minister's greedy table laden as it is with the lucrative and sleazy spread of the NSW development industry. Have only skimmed the 'Explanatory Note' as I have to go to work tomorrow but here's a bit of what's on the menu for Development Assessment:

S.23N includes provisions requiring councils to provide access to records and use of council staff and facilities to assist the PAC, a JRPP or a planning arbitrator in the exercise of their functions. Offences apply to council staff and general managers in relation to failure to provide such assistance.
S.23O requires councils to pay the costs of the PAC, a JRPP, planning arbitrator or an IHAP where those bodies are exercising functions with respect to development under Part 4 which is located in the relevant council’s area

and, re Complying Development (the matters your Private Certifiers will take care of):

Schedule 2.1 [15] currently section 76A(6) of the principal Act provides that development cannot be complying development if the development is critical habitat, part of a wilderness area, land subject of a interim heritage order or an item of environmental heritage. The proposed amendment will remove these legislative restrictions
Schedule 2.1 [21] removes section 85A(2) so that the public notification requirements are provided for in the EP&A Regulation rather than in the council’s DCP.(i.e. not a Council matter - haven't found the EPA Reg as yet)
Schedule 2.1 [22] amends section 85A of the principal Act to allow a council or an accredited certifier to issue a complying development certificate, even if the proposed development does not comply with the relevant standards and conditions
That one really takes the cake - don't you think?

I've not yet seen reference to participation except where it's being reduced or removed...opportunities for Applicant reviews appear to be generously extended whilst we must wait to find out what they may be in the case of Objectors :
Schedule 2.1 [34] (proposed section 96E) It is proposed to amend the principal Regulation to make provision with respect to the persons who are qualified to apply for an objector review.

Planning Reform Submissions Report

My favourite quote is what the 'independent' authors (Manidis Roberts P/L) say of the 26 subs from "developers and private businesses" i.e. "they were generally very supportive of the reforms". Well I can't say I'm at all surprised since they as good as commissioned it with their $10.6M donation to NSW Labor over the past 8 years!
Only 3 MPs (Clover, Sylvia Hale and Pittwater's Rob Stokes)have made submissions - thoughtful and constructive ones.
The 180 formal submissions from residents included "a large number" who opposed the reforms "primarily due to their perception that local community input would be eroded in the process and the protection of local environment and heritage" (their grammar, see p. 21 - but my emphasis). And no fewer than 71 community groups lodged formal submissions which were "generally opposed to the reforms...the principal areas of concern were the effect of the reforms on environment/heritage...and perceived lack of community consultation". Note the 'independent' consultants use of the word 'perceived' in their analysis - the inference being that they (i.e. we) do not properly understand the situation!
How arrogant. In 1979, one of the 3 principal objects of the then new Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (S.5) was identified as :
to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment
Seems the consultants are so busy spinning they no longer know which way is up. See for yourself here

Alectura lathami (Suburban Turkey!)

Last year my neighbour Christine announced the arrival of the Scrub Turkey below Channel 9. Well this morning at 8.00am on my morning walk through Artarmon Reserve, who should strut out across the railway path not 2 metres ahead of me but said turkey! I imagine that it won’t be long before the Council starts getting complaints from residents about these birds “ruining their gardens” with their scratching & nest making – can’t wait (Thanks Neil - for this photo of our bird!)

The impact of positioning NSW as “Open for Business” is being felt keenly in local government. We are experiencing a sustained and far reaching erosion of local democratic process as the Iemma government eagerly fosters the business of property development. As the Greens have brought very much into focus, the property development industry is the most generous contributor to (major) political party campaign funds. The state government’s overhaul of S94 (developers) contributions will prevent us from providing the infrastructure residents have come to expect and the “Standard Template” for Local Environment Plans (LEPs) reduces our capacity to protect and preserve local environmental values along with our ability to achieve (with community endorsement) a higher level of ESD than the state government prescribed / lowest common denominator approach (e.g. BASIX).And as regards our funding base, the Productivity Commission in its Draft Report concluded that:

A wide variety of legislative and regulatory restrictions are imposed by jurisdictions on the raising of ownsource revenue by local government, although generally these do not appear to be significant impedediments to revenue raising in most jurisdictions, with the exception of rate pegging and concessions in New South Wales (my emphasis)

At the same time, a recent seminar run by the Environmental Defender’s Office examined the latest raft of the NSW government’s “Planning Reforms”. It was great to see Progress Association reps from Willoughby in attendance (Castlecrag & West Ward), in fact there was good representation from the northside generally (Ku-ring-gai, Hornsby and Pittwater) and especially good to see that they are getting organised. That’s about it for the good news though. Planners, lawyers, academics & environmental activists were joined by these (self described) ‘ordinary folk’ giving voice to deep concerns about the shutting down of public participation in NSW planning processes. Following on from the notorious Part 3A amendments last year, significant changes are proposed to :

• The process of Plan Making (particularly our LEPs)
• Development Assessment (including introduction of 3 levels of Planning Panels (highly controversial where they have been implemented e.g. in South Australia)
• Exempt & complying development – to be expanded to 50% of all developments (no notifications & no qualitative criteria)
• Private Certifier’s role extended to include discretionary matters & possibly subdivisions
The deadline for submissions is February 8th - find the EDO’s recommendations here

And finally about the Netball trial at Artarmon Reserve, the proposal was introduced at a Committee meeting late last year. I moved and was supported by Barry Thompson, to have the Council Officer’s report circulated, inviting your feedback. I thought it a bad idea at the time and judging by what you have copied me in on – I’m in good company!