14 September, 2012
New Planning System Team,
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Pyrmont
Action Inc was established in 2003 to foster cooperation between the local Pyrmont
community, Council and other government agencies; to work towards the
enhancement of the physical, social and economic environment of Pyrmont; to
provide a vehicle for resolution of community issues; and to promote community
cohesion. We have a reputation for
providing well-considered and sensible input to the local community as well as
agencies with responsibility for planning and development in Pyrmont and its
environs. For example, our members have
been involved in the Bays Precinct CRG and have provided input to Community
representatives on the Bays Precinct Task Force. Our active involvement across a large range
of local issues, and the relationships we have developed with a range of
stakeholders including the local community, the City of Sydney, developers such
as Lend Lease, and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, positions us well to
comment on the Green Paper, especially the community consultation
proposals.
The key
lesson to be learned from the redevelopment of Pyrmont over the last 20 years
is that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the future, and even more
difficult to reactively respond to needs in the absence of sufficient land for
local infrastructure; therefore plans need to provide the flexibility to meet
community needs as they arise. The
planners for the redevelopment of Pyrmont anticipated attracting residents with
no children to the area, however they did not anticipate the growth in
residents choosing to move to, or remain in the inner city (rather than moving
to outer suburbs) to start a family and raise children. Pyrmont has grown over the last 20 years
from a population of ~1,000 residents to over 12,000 in 2011 (Census, 2011) –
with minimal to non-existent investment in the public transport, social,
educational, youth and sporting infrastructure in the area, affecting all ages,
noting that the major population expansion has been in the 20-35 age
bracket. Where community consultations
did highlight these future needs, planners failed to make adequate provisions
to implement plans to ensure needs were met.
This created strain on the
infrastructure in surrounding suburbs such as Ultimo, which in turn has led to
the untenable situation whereby many children living in Ultimo are no longer
within the catchment area of the Ultimo public school and must go to the school
in adjoining suburbs. The redevelopment
of Pyrmont highlights the importance of ensuring that the new planning system
provides for effective community input throughout all stages of the development
process, (including on individual developments) and local government must
continue to be involved in planning assessments. Plans need to be flexible
enough to meet unanticipated future community needs.
Based on
our learnings from the redevelopment of Pyrmont, we propose that the key issues
to be addressed in any change in the planning system are:
- Providing a balance between the need for flexibility for developers and the need for certainty for local residents and businesses
- Developing a system of actual and perceived (by the community) effective and genuine community participation at all levels of planning, including assessment of developments at the local level
- Ensuring that development is environmentally sustainable and meets social needs
- Ensuring there is sufficient time, and resources to enable all stakeholders to reach optimal outcomes
To address the gaps we have made a
number of recommendations aligned to each of the areas of focus for the reform
and these are summarised in Table 1
below. The following submission
addresses each of the elements of reform in turn and provides a short Case
Study on the proposed Pyrmont Infill Growth Plan in Appendix
1
(page 16 of this submission) for further consideration.
Table 1: Summary of Recommendations against each Reform Area of Focus
Community
Participation
|
Recommendation
1:
Community Participation should be retained at all levels of the planning
process; be in a form agreed up front with community and local government
representatives; and conducted at the early concept stage. The views of the community should be given
equal weighting with those of government departments and the development
lobby
|
Recommendation
2: The Act should require that proponents of
developments over $5M consult with representatives of local communities from
the concept stage of planning and continue the dialogue until the plans are
assessed by local government or other assessment authorities.
|
|
Recommendation
3: All
members of the local community should be helped to access information
about and contribute to regional,
sub-regional and local planning. The
new system needs to provide all members of the local community with means to effectively participate in
planning decision-making
|
|
Recommendation
4: That
the Seattle model of community participation be adopted, with funding to come
from developer contributions.
|
|
Recommendation
5: That
no decisions be made with regard to major infrastructure provision before
amendments to the Planning Act are in place and mechanisms for community
consultation that are acceptable to the community are agreed.
|
|
Recommendation
6: It is imperative that public land
ownership in Pyrmont be rationalised, and zoning and other planning
instruments compiled in ONE LEP, to enable the community to engage more
effectively.
|
|
Strategic
Focus
|
Recommendation
7:
The principles enshrined in the new Planning Act should underpin all
other strategic plans, all of which should be integrated; community
representatives should be partners in strategic planning, not merely informed.
|
Recommendation
8: All planning processes must include an
objective test to maintain or improve environmental outcomes; retain the roles
of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Office of Water and the
Environmental Protection Agency in assessing and agreeing to development
proposals.
|
|
Recommendation
9: Retain the newly developed DCPs and LEPs in
the medium term to provide certainty to the community; any changes should involve community representatives in the decision-making, as
equal partners; ensure that existing public natural areas, public recreation
areas and heritage items are identified and retained as separate, and
immutable zones in the new Local Land Use Plans; flexibility should not be
achieved at the expense of environmental and heritage protection, and social
amenity.
|
|
Streamlined
Approval
|
Recommendation
10: The assessment of DAs, in particular
non-complying local development or rezoning should remain in the hands of
democratically elected local councils; the assessment process should not be
constrained by artificial deadlines.
|
Recommendation
11:
Include consideration of environmental and social values in the definition of
State Significance developments; define the roles of local government and the
community in the assessment process.
|
|
Provision
of Infrastructure
|
Recommendation
12: Planning
at all levels must ensure the centrality of infrastructure provision and the
means for funding it as regional and sub-regional development occurs; the
definition of infrastructure should be broadened to include provision of
educational and health facilities, childcare centres, aged care facilities,
cultural, community and sporting facilities.
|
Recommendation 13: Streamline coordination between State
agencies, and local government in the provision of infrastructure;
recognising that growth in housing requires social and educational
infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure such as roads and
transport.
|
|
Recommendation 14: The infrastructure levy system must be fair
and transparent and subject to annual monitoring to ensure funds are spent
where needed at the local level.
|
|
Recommendation 15: The draft NSW Long-Term Transport
Masterplan should be modified and a new plan developed that adopts the best
practice from cities such as London, New York and Hong Kong, ie investment
(public and private) in rail solutions and the introduction of congestion
pricing for the Sydney CBD as Public Priority Infrastructure.
|
|
Performance
Monitoring
|
Recommendation
16: Require 3-yearly independent review
of the planning system by the NSW Auditor-General to ensure all Green Paper
principles are being addressed effectively, and ensuring that any changes
recommended are implemented following public debate.
|
Recommendation 1: Community Participation should be retained at all levels of the planning process; be in a form agreed up front with community and local government representatives; and conducted at the early concept stage. The views of the community should be given equal weighting with those of government departments and the development lobby.
Any new planning system, especially for the metropolitan area should be driven from the grass roots, up. It is our experience that local communities often know the details of their particular precincts and can identify the implications of developments on the local residents, businesses and community facilities far better than planning experts. However this local knowledge is largely disregarded in the public consultation process as the end decisions typically reflect the original concepts put forward by the consultants, architects, experts ie the community ends up being informed not consulted. Examples of such largely ‘predetermined’ outcomes after exhaustive consultation with Pyrmont Action and a number of other local community groups over the last 15 years include projects such as:
- The City Strategic Plan
- Local Action Plans
- Pirrama Park
- Sustainable Sydney 2030
- Biodiversity Strategy
- 2011 City Plan
- Street Tree Master Plan
- Greening Sydney
The Green Paper fails to ensure that the views of the community are given sufficient weight in planning decisions. If this is not addressed, it is likely that when it comes to the overriding driver of these changes to the planning system – growth - the views of the community will be given very little weight as against the views of the development lobby when it comes to establishing the regional, sub-regional and local plans. The ‘provision for clear feedback in response to issues raised prior to a decision being made’ (p21) is not sufficient to ensure that the issues of merit are given the weight they deserve, rather than creating pro-forma responses that fail to show acknowledgement and consideration of the issues. The Green Paper itself is an example of such bias with a large number of quotes from organisations with a professional interest in development – Productivity Commission, Planning Institute, Urban Development Institute, Australian National Retailers Association, Urban Taskforce and NSW Business Chamber – compared with only one quote from a community group – and even then, a group that represents only a subsection of interests - conservationists.
Recommendation 2: The Act should require that proponents of developments over $5M consult with representatives of local communities from the concept stage of planning and continue the dialogue until the plans are assessed by local government or other assessment authorities.
Any new system must provide avenues for ongoing community consultation on broad strategic directions (eg. in partnership with local government through Master Plan development) right down to the individual DA assessment. The most effective consultation examples in Pyrmont occurred in relation to a few individual developments where community representatives have worked with developers, including Lend Lease and Ceerose from the early concept stage. On two occasions, the developer has actually come to us to seek our input before an architect has been engaged. It should be noted that the community representatives, in these instances, have accepted the Master Plans and LEP controls as the broad planning parameters for these developments but there were still issues to be addressed at the DA level to meet community expectations and this was achieved by continued consultation with both the developer and Council during the planning and assessment processes. Genuine consultation works and is effective, but only when it is not just a box-ticking exercise or an inflexible application of a formulaic approach such as the Delphi technique. Each community has its own character and composition and will require a flexible approach.
Recommendation 3: All members of the local community should be helped to access information about and contribute to regional, sub-regional and local planning. The new system needs to provide all members of the local community with the means to effectively participate in planning decision-making
Community consultations need to be accessible and representative to be effective. Those of us engaged in preparing submissions have undertaken this work on a voluntary basis and they reflect the views of a fairly narrow section of the community – those who have the knowledge and a strong interest in having their voices heard, as we do not have the resources to engage more broadly. It is often only when a development is proposed close to home, that members of the community become engaged. The Green Paper is lacking in proposals to make the planning system accessible to all members of the community; particularly in terms of any guidance or guarantees on how communities can ensure that implications of proposals are understood, and community concerns can be effectively raised, acknowledged and addressed. Consultation times, venues, formats, notice periods, durations and communication methods and frequency are all means by which various sectors of the community are restricted from being able to actively participate.
Recommendation 4: That the Seattle model of community participation be adopted, with funding to come from developer contributions.
The City of Sydney community is well-acquainted with the Seattle model of community participation as this was supposed to form the basis of the strategic planning undertaken in the early stages of the current Council’s regime. We strongly support the allocation of appropriate levels of funding required for neighbourhoods to develop their vision for their neighbourhoods – with the expectation that they will be assisted to realise it. A possible mechanism is to set aside developer contributions (eg Section 94 funds) to fund community-generated projects in partnership with local governments. We have yet to see this model fully implemented, however its importance is increasing especially in relation to matters such as how the allocation of $55m funding for new child care centres will be spread across the Sydney LGA.
Recommendation 5: That no decisions be
made with regard to major infrastructure provision before amendments to the
Planning Act are in place and mechanisms for community consultation that are
acceptable to the community are agreed.
We have participated in consultation on a number of NSW Government planning initiatives, including:
We have participated in consultation on a number of NSW Government planning initiatives, including:
- Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays Master Plan
- Site M North development (Point/Scott Street)
- Bank Street Master Plan
- Sydney Fish Markets Master Plan
- Redevelopment of Blackwattle Bay – Sites B1 and B2
- Bays Precinct Stages 1 and 2; and
- Transport Master Plan;
However it appears that the overwhelming need for a reduction in vehicular traffic in the City and a strategy for increased public transport, such as light rail and a metro system will be deferred, in favour of yet more motorways, resulting in yet more traffic congestion. We have seen too many decisions taken over the 5 year period of the Bays Precinct deliberations which pre-empted any recommendations to be made on the future of these vital publicly owned foreshore areas. It is essential that any decisions about major infrastructure be deferred until changes to the Planning Act are finalised.
Recommendation 6: It is imperative that public land ownership in Pyrmont be rationalised, and zoning and other planning instruments compiled in ONE LEP, to enable the community to engage more effectively.
In Pyrmont, we currently have to deal with around 15 local and state government agencies. Public land in Pyrmont is variously under the control of The Department of Planning, the Office of Strategic Lands, SHFA, Roads and Maritime Services, Sydney Ports, Treasury, Ministry of Transport, Rail Corp, and the City of Sydney. We operate under two separate LEPs, the recent 2011 City Plan developed jointly between the Department of Planning and the City of Sydney, and the 2005 LEP Ultimo-Pyrmont Zoning Map. Each uses a different zoning regime, so are inconsistent and all attempts to have the two schemes amalgamated have failed. Changing planning laws should not be used as an excuse to exclude the community and local government from having a voice, especially at the DA assessment stage but it can provide an opportunity to improve community participation in decisions that affect their local area
2.0 Strategic Focus
Recommendation 7: The principles enshrined in the new Planning Act should underpin all other strategic plans, all of which should be integrated; community representatives should be partners in strategic planning, not merely informed.
The new planning system needs to address the current failure to assess the cumulative impacts of individual developments. We support an emphasis on strategic planning and, in particular, the integration of land use and infrastructure planning. Indeed this was the intent of the recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG. Yet ad hoc decision-making proceeds apace in the Bays through the State Significant development mechanism.
Recommendation 8: All planning processes must include an objective test to maintain or improve environmental outcomes; retain the roles of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Office of Water and the Environmental Protection Agency in assessing and agreeing to development proposals.
There is no clear indication given to what, if any, environmental matters will need to be considered in planning policies or assessment procedures. Nowhere in this section of the draft is there any reference to planning at any level being underpinned by environmentally sustainable development (ESD) considerations. Instead, we find proposals to remove the important role of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Office of Water, and the Environmental Protection Agency in assessing and agreeing to development proposals. A fundamental principle of ESD should be the minimization of traffic congestion in the inner metropolitan area, enabled by greatly enhanced public transport, in particular rail transport (both light rail and metro). However, this is violated by the draft Transport Master Plan which is recommending yet more motorways resulting in more congestion and greater reliance on carbon emitting fuel, with no firm recommendations on new rail infrastructure. The overriding sentiment of the Green Paper is to facilitate development in the shortest possible time and in a framework in which assessment of environmental impact is not given a mention. Sustainability and environmental protections are severely lacking in the current proposals, demonstrating an absolute deficit in strategic planning, in direct contradiction to the principles and purposes of the new planning systems.
Recommendation 9: Retain the newly developed (2011) DCPs and LEPs in the medium term to provide certainty to the community; any changes should involve community representatives in the decision-making, as equal partners; ensure that existing public natural areas, public recreation areas and heritage items are identified and retained as separate, and immutable zones in the new Local Land Use Plans; flexibility should not be achieved at the expense of environmental and heritage protection, and social amenity.
We are particularly concerned to learn that there will be new zones to maximise flexibility with opportunities to streamline decision making at development stages, including exempt/complying development. This proposal does not meet the transparency or certainty objectives of the planning review. If these new zones were implemented, they are likely to regenerate the ad-hoc decision-making that previously existed under the Part 3A provisions, which are deplored by the community. It is impossible to reconcile this approach with transparent planning decisions.
We have just been through an exhaustive process conducted over five years and involving both the City of Sydney and the Department of Planning and Community Consultation to produce the 2011 City Plan. This process saw a substantial reduction in the number of land use zones and consolidation of permitted and non-permitted uses within these zones. Yet, it is proposed to undertake the whole process again through the development of Local Land Use Plans which will maximise flexibility [for developers] and provide opportunities for investment capture, only protecting suburban character “in certain circumstances” (undefined). The current plans already provide a framework in which “planning and investment decisions can be readily communicated and made”. What is allowed and what isn’t is quite clear. The only uncertainties arise when the Government declares non-conforming developments to be of State Significance as has occurred around the Bays Precinct.
Three zones are currently proposed which, we are advised “are expected to become part of a suite of zones under Local Land Use Plans”:
3.0 Streamlined Approval
Recommendation 10: The assessment of DAs, in particular non-complying local development or rezoning should remain in the hands of democratically elected local councils; the assessment process should not be constrained by artificial deadlines.
We strongly oppose the proposal to prohibit assessment of any matter that has been dealt with at another stage of the approval process. This removes any right of appeal and reduces assessment to a “box ticking” exercise without any thought to changes to community needs or impacts during the process. It assumes that the higher level strategic planning “got it right” in the first place – and our experience in Pyrmont belies that assumption. A strategic plan is only ever ‘right’ for a moment in time and without mechanisms for reviews and updates in line with the changing demographic of an area, the removal of community rights to assess a matter at the DA stage is too high a cost to bear. In the event that a developer seeks spot re-zoning, the community will have no say, and councils will be unlikely to be able to prevent it. Simplicity and the removal of red tape must not come at the cost of effectiveness and the loss of any existing rights; effective and balanced outcomes must always be the overriding objective.
We are also concerned that Councillors will be placed in positions where they are unable to represent the interests of their constituents. We note that the development types that can be approved by accredited certifiers will be extended; and that responsibility for assessing DAs will be given to “independent and expert decision makers”, ie it removes such decisions from democratically elected Councillors. Our experience is that better outcomes can be achieved through making representations to, and addressing directly our Councillors.
It is unclear from the Green Paper how the ‘independence’ of such decision makers will be determined, or what rights of appeal or review will be available in the event that the independence of a decision needs to be challenged. No person who relies on state or local government or proponent contracts can be deemed truly independent. If our local government representatives don’t perform to the community’s expectations, they will lose their positions so they are more likely to heed community views than anyone on the state or local government, or proponent payroll. No measures have been proposed to enable community representatives to put their case to these unelected officials who must operate under extremely restrictive statutory timelines. Giving certainty to developers should not come at the cost of maintaining certainty for the environment and community amenity. Efficiency is important but it does not necessarily equate with effectiveness. Rather than constrain the assessment process by the establishment of artificial timelines, it should be allowed to proceed in a way that assists communities to contribute meaningfully towards development of plans at all levels which meet government, stakeholder and community objectives
Recommendation 11: Include consideration of environmental and social values in the definition of State Significance developments; define the roles of local government and the community in the assessment process.
Leaving State and regional scale development assessment and assessment of developments of State Significance in the hands of the Planning Assessment Commission and the Joint Regional Planning Panel effectively maintains the status quo. To effect any improvement, it is essential that community representatives have the right to make direct representations to such bodies, and to personally address them to make their case. The definition of State Significance should include consideration of environmental and social values as well as the jobs and dollars that may be generated. Two new additions have been made to the definition of State Significant Projects and it is noted that the decision maker for these will be the Planning Assessment Commission/ the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. It is vital that the ability of local government to have an input into the assessment process be clearly defined; and to ensure that community representatives are able to meet with the decision maker and/or the assessors for these large projects.
4.0 Provision of Infrastructure
Recommendation 12: Planning at all levels must ensure the centrality of infrastructure provision and the means for funding it; the definition of infrastructure should be broadened to include provision of educational and health facilities, childcare centres, aged care facilities, cultural, community and sporting facilities, as regional and sub-regional development occurs.
We agree with the view of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils that “the provision of infrastructure should be made central to the new planning legislation”. But the legislation needs to expand the definition of “infrastructure” to encompass far more than roads, railways and public parks. It also must include social infrastructure critical to community development such as schools, hospitals, aged care facilities, childcare, sporting facilities, community centres, cultural facilities, social housing, etc. etc., not just in greenfield sites on the outskirts of the city, but also in any new plans associated with urban consolidation in existing suburbs. As noted above, even in recently redeveloped areas such as Pyrmont and Ultimo, infrastructure requirements need to be re-examined, to address the shortfall in the provision of schools, sporting facilities, cultural and community spaces and other facilities unanticipated in the plans for the redevelopment of the area. Pyrmont, in particular, has large sites that have remained undeveloped for over 20 years, including sites owned by the City of Sydney, where partnership between the council, the government, developers and the community provides an opportunity to address this shortfall.
Recommendation 13: Streamline coordination between State agencies, and local government in the provision of infrastructure; recognising that growth in housing requires social and educational infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure such as roads and transport; and recognising that provisions need to be made for existing as well as future needs
We also agree that state agencies should demonstrate a stronger sense of common purpose and be focused on providing essential infrastructure. Whilst the Government has made an attempt to get greater coordination between agencies, they still appear to operate as silos, even within the one department. This is clearly demonstrated by the failure to reach any resolution on the future of the Bank Street Public Recreation Area in Pyrmont where land ownership lies with Roads and Maritime Services and SHFA, since the finalisation of the Bank Street Master Plan in 2006. This is also evident in the lack of coordination between all levels of government to ensure adequate provision of local childcare places and schools for local residents; Ultimo children falling outside the catchment area for Ultimo Public School is a case in point. DCPs fail to give local councils and local communities any power to address already existing inadequacies in local infrastructure; and the proposals under the Green Paper do not address these issues outside of recommendations to increase collaboration and coordination between agencies.
Recommendation 14: The infrastructure levy system must be fair and transparent and subject to annual monitoring to ensure funds are spent where needed at the local level
We agree that a new framework for infrastructure levies is required. Developer contributions levied on new developments in Pyrmont and Ultimo differ markedly from those applying in other parts of the City of Sydney. The system is manifestly unfair and not transparent, with little or no accountability on the part of the bodies collecting and dispensing the levies. It is essential that there be a clear, transparent link between levy revenue collection and infrastructure programming and delivery. Any new system must ensure that developers adhere to the agreed infrastructure program and any changes proposed should require community and local government consultation. In addition, it must give local communities the power to enforce provisions to ensure that there is sufficient investment of funds in local infrastructure; not just the mere collection of those funds. The inadequacy of social infrastructure in Pyrmont relative to resident needs is again a case in point.
Recommendation 15: The draft NSW Long-Term Transport Masterplan should be reconsidered and a new plan developed that adopts the best practice from cities such as London, New York and Hong Kong, ie investment (public and private) in rail solutions and the introduction of congestion pricing for the Sydney CBD as Public Priority Infrastructure.
There is no evidence that the Masterplan’s proposal for more roads will solve the immediate and long term challenges for Transport in NSW; in fact all the evidence from major cities around the world demonstrates that building more motorways provides only temporary relief from congestion, increases pollution, and is unsustainable in the longer term. Of vital importance to those who live and work in the CBD and inner suburbs is the provision of new public transport and the progressive reduction of traffic congestion within a 5km radius of the centre of the City of Sydney. The draft NSW Long-Term Transport Masterplan with its proposed new motorways, if implemented in its current form will result in gridlock in our city streets. It is essential that a new metro rail system be put in place as soon as possible to provide new CBD train stations to cope with the already planned new residential and commercial development at Barangaroo and the proposed redevelopment of Darling Harbour, not to mention any future new large-scale developments in the city eg above Central railway, that may be contemplated. Wynyard, Town Hall and other CBD stations are at capacity now. In addition, light rail must be introduced to George Street, Barangaroo and Walsh Bay in order to reduce the reliance on buses in the CBD. This means planning at a regional and sub-regional level for transport interchanges, and the introduction of congestion charges in and around the CBD. If the draft Transport Masterplan represents the government’s idea of “evidence based” planning, we have little confidence in the future of planning in NSW.
5.0 Performance Monitoring
Recommendation 16: Require 3-yearly independent review of the planning system by the NSW Auditor-General to ensure all Green Paper principles are being addressed effectively, and ensuring that any changes recommended are implemented following public debate.
No details are provided as to how the performance of the new planning regime will be monitored other than reference to Key Performance Indicators and accountabilities included in strategic and local plans. As stated earlier, we do not think that the establishment of unrealistically short timelines in any way demonstrates the effectiveness of the new system. It is our view that the operations of the new Act should be independently reviewed by the Auditor General every 3 years against the high level principles outlined in the Green Paper:
Recommendation 6: It is imperative that public land ownership in Pyrmont be rationalised, and zoning and other planning instruments compiled in ONE LEP, to enable the community to engage more effectively.
In Pyrmont, we currently have to deal with around 15 local and state government agencies. Public land in Pyrmont is variously under the control of The Department of Planning, the Office of Strategic Lands, SHFA, Roads and Maritime Services, Sydney Ports, Treasury, Ministry of Transport, Rail Corp, and the City of Sydney. We operate under two separate LEPs, the recent 2011 City Plan developed jointly between the Department of Planning and the City of Sydney, and the 2005 LEP Ultimo-Pyrmont Zoning Map. Each uses a different zoning regime, so are inconsistent and all attempts to have the two schemes amalgamated have failed. Changing planning laws should not be used as an excuse to exclude the community and local government from having a voice, especially at the DA assessment stage but it can provide an opportunity to improve community participation in decisions that affect their local area
2.0 Strategic Focus
Recommendation 7: The principles enshrined in the new Planning Act should underpin all other strategic plans, all of which should be integrated; community representatives should be partners in strategic planning, not merely informed.
The new planning system needs to address the current failure to assess the cumulative impacts of individual developments. We support an emphasis on strategic planning and, in particular, the integration of land use and infrastructure planning. Indeed this was the intent of the recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG. Yet ad hoc decision-making proceeds apace in the Bays through the State Significant development mechanism.
We
would argue that the community should
be recognised as a stakeholder in “partnership between State and local
government and stakeholders” and not merely be consulted in the development of
these strategies. The underlying
assumptions of the proposed changes are that there will be growth (probably
correct in metropolitan areas, but problematic in regional areas); that there
will be a partnership between state
and local government and stakeholders (presumably that means developers); and consultation with the community. The valid interests of the community must be
given a voice and considered of equal weighting to all other stakeholders in
strategic planning.
Recommendation 8: All planning processes must include an objective test to maintain or improve environmental outcomes; retain the roles of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Office of Water and the Environmental Protection Agency in assessing and agreeing to development proposals.
There is no clear indication given to what, if any, environmental matters will need to be considered in planning policies or assessment procedures. Nowhere in this section of the draft is there any reference to planning at any level being underpinned by environmentally sustainable development (ESD) considerations. Instead, we find proposals to remove the important role of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Office of Water, and the Environmental Protection Agency in assessing and agreeing to development proposals. A fundamental principle of ESD should be the minimization of traffic congestion in the inner metropolitan area, enabled by greatly enhanced public transport, in particular rail transport (both light rail and metro). However, this is violated by the draft Transport Master Plan which is recommending yet more motorways resulting in more congestion and greater reliance on carbon emitting fuel, with no firm recommendations on new rail infrastructure. The overriding sentiment of the Green Paper is to facilitate development in the shortest possible time and in a framework in which assessment of environmental impact is not given a mention. Sustainability and environmental protections are severely lacking in the current proposals, demonstrating an absolute deficit in strategic planning, in direct contradiction to the principles and purposes of the new planning systems.
Recommendation 9: Retain the newly developed (2011) DCPs and LEPs in the medium term to provide certainty to the community; any changes should involve community representatives in the decision-making, as equal partners; ensure that existing public natural areas, public recreation areas and heritage items are identified and retained as separate, and immutable zones in the new Local Land Use Plans; flexibility should not be achieved at the expense of environmental and heritage protection, and social amenity.
We are particularly concerned to learn that there will be new zones to maximise flexibility with opportunities to streamline decision making at development stages, including exempt/complying development. This proposal does not meet the transparency or certainty objectives of the planning review. If these new zones were implemented, they are likely to regenerate the ad-hoc decision-making that previously existed under the Part 3A provisions, which are deplored by the community. It is impossible to reconcile this approach with transparent planning decisions.
We have just been through an exhaustive process conducted over five years and involving both the City of Sydney and the Department of Planning and Community Consultation to produce the 2011 City Plan. This process saw a substantial reduction in the number of land use zones and consolidation of permitted and non-permitted uses within these zones. Yet, it is proposed to undertake the whole process again through the development of Local Land Use Plans which will maximise flexibility [for developers] and provide opportunities for investment capture, only protecting suburban character “in certain circumstances” (undefined). The current plans already provide a framework in which “planning and investment decisions can be readily communicated and made”. What is allowed and what isn’t is quite clear. The only uncertainties arise when the Government declares non-conforming developments to be of State Significance as has occurred around the Bays Precinct.
Three zones are currently proposed which, we are advised “are expected to become part of a suite of zones under Local Land Use Plans”:
- Enterprise Zone will allow any development to occur within it with fewer standards
- Future Urban Release Area Zone – allows Councils to identify areas for future urban release without definite boundaries and before infrastructure or services are planned
- Suburban Character Zone – will allow a council to retain lower density development in particular suburbs (similar to the current R2 zone).
3.0 Streamlined Approval
Recommendation 10: The assessment of DAs, in particular non-complying local development or rezoning should remain in the hands of democratically elected local councils; the assessment process should not be constrained by artificial deadlines.
We strongly oppose the proposal to prohibit assessment of any matter that has been dealt with at another stage of the approval process. This removes any right of appeal and reduces assessment to a “box ticking” exercise without any thought to changes to community needs or impacts during the process. It assumes that the higher level strategic planning “got it right” in the first place – and our experience in Pyrmont belies that assumption. A strategic plan is only ever ‘right’ for a moment in time and without mechanisms for reviews and updates in line with the changing demographic of an area, the removal of community rights to assess a matter at the DA stage is too high a cost to bear. In the event that a developer seeks spot re-zoning, the community will have no say, and councils will be unlikely to be able to prevent it. Simplicity and the removal of red tape must not come at the cost of effectiveness and the loss of any existing rights; effective and balanced outcomes must always be the overriding objective.
We are also concerned that Councillors will be placed in positions where they are unable to represent the interests of their constituents. We note that the development types that can be approved by accredited certifiers will be extended; and that responsibility for assessing DAs will be given to “independent and expert decision makers”, ie it removes such decisions from democratically elected Councillors. Our experience is that better outcomes can be achieved through making representations to, and addressing directly our Councillors.
It is unclear from the Green Paper how the ‘independence’ of such decision makers will be determined, or what rights of appeal or review will be available in the event that the independence of a decision needs to be challenged. No person who relies on state or local government or proponent contracts can be deemed truly independent. If our local government representatives don’t perform to the community’s expectations, they will lose their positions so they are more likely to heed community views than anyone on the state or local government, or proponent payroll. No measures have been proposed to enable community representatives to put their case to these unelected officials who must operate under extremely restrictive statutory timelines. Giving certainty to developers should not come at the cost of maintaining certainty for the environment and community amenity. Efficiency is important but it does not necessarily equate with effectiveness. Rather than constrain the assessment process by the establishment of artificial timelines, it should be allowed to proceed in a way that assists communities to contribute meaningfully towards development of plans at all levels which meet government, stakeholder and community objectives
Recommendation 11: Include consideration of environmental and social values in the definition of State Significance developments; define the roles of local government and the community in the assessment process.
Leaving State and regional scale development assessment and assessment of developments of State Significance in the hands of the Planning Assessment Commission and the Joint Regional Planning Panel effectively maintains the status quo. To effect any improvement, it is essential that community representatives have the right to make direct representations to such bodies, and to personally address them to make their case. The definition of State Significance should include consideration of environmental and social values as well as the jobs and dollars that may be generated. Two new additions have been made to the definition of State Significant Projects and it is noted that the decision maker for these will be the Planning Assessment Commission/ the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. It is vital that the ability of local government to have an input into the assessment process be clearly defined; and to ensure that community representatives are able to meet with the decision maker and/or the assessors for these large projects.
4.0 Provision of Infrastructure
Recommendation 12: Planning at all levels must ensure the centrality of infrastructure provision and the means for funding it; the definition of infrastructure should be broadened to include provision of educational and health facilities, childcare centres, aged care facilities, cultural, community and sporting facilities, as regional and sub-regional development occurs.
We agree with the view of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils that “the provision of infrastructure should be made central to the new planning legislation”. But the legislation needs to expand the definition of “infrastructure” to encompass far more than roads, railways and public parks. It also must include social infrastructure critical to community development such as schools, hospitals, aged care facilities, childcare, sporting facilities, community centres, cultural facilities, social housing, etc. etc., not just in greenfield sites on the outskirts of the city, but also in any new plans associated with urban consolidation in existing suburbs. As noted above, even in recently redeveloped areas such as Pyrmont and Ultimo, infrastructure requirements need to be re-examined, to address the shortfall in the provision of schools, sporting facilities, cultural and community spaces and other facilities unanticipated in the plans for the redevelopment of the area. Pyrmont, in particular, has large sites that have remained undeveloped for over 20 years, including sites owned by the City of Sydney, where partnership between the council, the government, developers and the community provides an opportunity to address this shortfall.
Recommendation 13: Streamline coordination between State agencies, and local government in the provision of infrastructure; recognising that growth in housing requires social and educational infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure such as roads and transport; and recognising that provisions need to be made for existing as well as future needs
We also agree that state agencies should demonstrate a stronger sense of common purpose and be focused on providing essential infrastructure. Whilst the Government has made an attempt to get greater coordination between agencies, they still appear to operate as silos, even within the one department. This is clearly demonstrated by the failure to reach any resolution on the future of the Bank Street Public Recreation Area in Pyrmont where land ownership lies with Roads and Maritime Services and SHFA, since the finalisation of the Bank Street Master Plan in 2006. This is also evident in the lack of coordination between all levels of government to ensure adequate provision of local childcare places and schools for local residents; Ultimo children falling outside the catchment area for Ultimo Public School is a case in point. DCPs fail to give local councils and local communities any power to address already existing inadequacies in local infrastructure; and the proposals under the Green Paper do not address these issues outside of recommendations to increase collaboration and coordination between agencies.
Recommendation 14: The infrastructure levy system must be fair and transparent and subject to annual monitoring to ensure funds are spent where needed at the local level
We agree that a new framework for infrastructure levies is required. Developer contributions levied on new developments in Pyrmont and Ultimo differ markedly from those applying in other parts of the City of Sydney. The system is manifestly unfair and not transparent, with little or no accountability on the part of the bodies collecting and dispensing the levies. It is essential that there be a clear, transparent link between levy revenue collection and infrastructure programming and delivery. Any new system must ensure that developers adhere to the agreed infrastructure program and any changes proposed should require community and local government consultation. In addition, it must give local communities the power to enforce provisions to ensure that there is sufficient investment of funds in local infrastructure; not just the mere collection of those funds. The inadequacy of social infrastructure in Pyrmont relative to resident needs is again a case in point.
Recommendation 15: The draft NSW Long-Term Transport Masterplan should be reconsidered and a new plan developed that adopts the best practice from cities such as London, New York and Hong Kong, ie investment (public and private) in rail solutions and the introduction of congestion pricing for the Sydney CBD as Public Priority Infrastructure.
There is no evidence that the Masterplan’s proposal for more roads will solve the immediate and long term challenges for Transport in NSW; in fact all the evidence from major cities around the world demonstrates that building more motorways provides only temporary relief from congestion, increases pollution, and is unsustainable in the longer term. Of vital importance to those who live and work in the CBD and inner suburbs is the provision of new public transport and the progressive reduction of traffic congestion within a 5km radius of the centre of the City of Sydney. The draft NSW Long-Term Transport Masterplan with its proposed new motorways, if implemented in its current form will result in gridlock in our city streets. It is essential that a new metro rail system be put in place as soon as possible to provide new CBD train stations to cope with the already planned new residential and commercial development at Barangaroo and the proposed redevelopment of Darling Harbour, not to mention any future new large-scale developments in the city eg above Central railway, that may be contemplated. Wynyard, Town Hall and other CBD stations are at capacity now. In addition, light rail must be introduced to George Street, Barangaroo and Walsh Bay in order to reduce the reliance on buses in the CBD. This means planning at a regional and sub-regional level for transport interchanges, and the introduction of congestion charges in and around the CBD. If the draft Transport Masterplan represents the government’s idea of “evidence based” planning, we have little confidence in the future of planning in NSW.
5.0 Performance Monitoring
Recommendation 16: Require 3-yearly independent review of the planning system by the NSW Auditor-General to ensure all Green Paper principles are being addressed effectively, and ensuring that any changes recommended are implemented following public debate.
No details are provided as to how the performance of the new planning regime will be monitored other than reference to Key Performance Indicators and accountabilities included in strategic and local plans. As stated earlier, we do not think that the establishment of unrealistically short timelines in any way demonstrates the effectiveness of the new system. It is our view that the operations of the new Act should be independently reviewed by the Auditor General every 3 years against the high level principles outlined in the Green Paper:
- Community Participation – How effective has community engagement at all levels of planning and assessment
- Strategic Focus – Have strategic decisions been integrated, based on the best evidence, and involved effective community and stakeholder engagement
- Streamlined Approach – Has the speed of decision-making been achieved without removing essential checks and balances or compromising environmental and social amenity
- Provision of Infrastructure – Has adequate infrastructure been integrated within and to serve new developments, including flexibility for adjustments for unanticipated future needs
The
Planning Green Paper is a highly significant document which will revolutionise
the way NSW regions and cities will be developed in the future. It is fundamentally weighted towards the
interests of developers and has a “speed at any cost” philosophy towards
planning and its assessment. The
environmental and social impacts of development are given little weight. The plan will stand or fall on how well all
those involved in the proposed planning system engage with local
communities. The outcome of the
consultation on the Green Paper will give some indication as to how well, or
even if, the voices of communities are heeded.
We look forward to working with the NSW Government on the attached
proposed planning project, as a model for future consultation.
Yours
sincerely,
Elizabeth
Elenius
Convenor
Appendix
1: Case Study – Pyrmont Infill Growth
Plan
Whilst
much of the redevelopment of Pyrmont-Ultimo has been completed, there remain a
number of sites which are vacant and undeveloped. Many of these are owned by one person who is
not interested in selling, using or developing them. As the owner is elderly, it is anticipated
that these sites will come on the market in the medium term. The sites include vacant land in and around
Harris Street, the main commercial strip in Pyrmont. They also include heritage listed
properties, including the Terminus Hotel.
Other undeveloped sites include the large Council-owned Wattle/Fig
Street depots (2) and 21 Harris Street, owned by Lend Lease, both of which have
been undeveloped for over 20 years. All
undeveloped properties are currently zoned Commercial or Mixed Use.
The
Planning Green Paper places considerable emphasis on strategic community
participation and, given the Pyrmont community’s strong record in sensible,
informed and sometimes successful involvement in local planning issues,
including participation in the Bays Precinct consultation, we propose that the
government trial the Seattle model of community engagement to enable us to
develop OUR vision for our neighbourhood, involving the future use of these
vacant or unused sites.
This
would provide an opportunity to re-examine the zoning for these sites,
presenting more opportunities for near-city housing, including
affordable/social housing, more retail opportunities, and, importantly,
opportunities to provide the social, sporting, educational and cultural
facilities which are currently lacking for the peninsula and nearby suburbs
through state/local government and private partnerships.
We ask
that we be given the opportunity to explore this proposal in more depth with
relevant officers.
