KENSINGTON & W KINGSFORD PRECINCT · 1. Enhancing community participation First, we see no evidence of the return of planning powers to the local community. On the contrary, community

__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL

1 / 24

KENSINGTON & W KINGSFORD PRECINCT

A community group in Randwick LGA

Correspondence:

POB 283

KENSINGTON NSW 2033

Submission to draft EPAA bill

SPYING - We attended the BPN seminar on Sunday 18 March at Redfern. It was

disconcerting to hear a member in the audience calling out a Department of

Planning official “Greg” sitting unannounced in the back rows. Why exactly

does the Department of Planning actively engage in SPYING on the public? Is

this on the ORDERS of the MINISTER? These are tactics which belong in Stalin

– Putin’s Russia and ought to be DENOUNCED IN A WESTERN LIBERAL

DEMOCRACY. “Greg” stayed on despite being called out. We hope he made an

objective report.

1 The community of Kensington & Kingsford has no confidence in the

planning system: the lack of transparency and accountability, are in

essence, our reasons:

An explicit failure of genuine community consultation; the local

community is now permanently deprived of any worthwhile

input into the statutory planning scheme AND into local

development

Local development hi-jacked by large scale developer

companies with the sole objective of commercial profit

Repeated propaganda peddling of projected population

estimates which belie the federal government’s immigration

figures

Repeated corroboration of population propaganda projections

limited to those who have a vested interest in development

The clear government objective appears to be to BUILD

APARTMENTS for CHINESE INVESTORS to ensure (1) profits of

party supporters (2) maintaining a false economy that

PRODUCES NOTHING

Repeated declarations of “open for business” supplanting all

other statutory planning objectives


2 / 24

The amendment of spot rezoning laws to advantage developers

- Part 3 s55 “planning proposals” a statutory scheme open to

abuse, for example, “relevant planning authorities” stacked

with party political operatives, claiming” if we don’t do it the

government will” or “we’ve got a gun to our head”

The massive FAILURE of the government’s jewel TRANSPORT

INFRASTRUCUTRE project – the CBD & SE Light rail – to meet its

3 central objectives – (1) improved journey times (Transport

minister admits journey times will be longer) (2) Increased

capacity (evidenced by report from Randwick council’s

consultant EMM & Transport Minister’s delegate Ms

Prendergast conceding massive bus boost is necessary) and (3)

reducing congestion (merely distributed to other streets /

areas)

The takeover of democracy by vested interests – both

government officials and private enterprise

● planning powers have NOT BEEN RETURNED to the local community – a

bare majority of Randwick councillors voting in support of the

Kensington & Kingsford planning proposal on Tue 13 & Sat 17 December

2016 – 7 votes to 6 – some councillors strong-armed by the General

KWKP meeting 10 Oct 2016 – Kensington & Kingsford strategic review concern re: Lack of ANY community

consultation plus an AMBUSHED & QUESTIONABLE “International” Design competition


3 / 24

Manager, one of the highest paid grade 1 local government CEOs, with a

52 week termination payout (? An incentive to do the government’s

bidding? we ask) – only endorses the lack of residents’ credibility in

both Randwick LGA community consultation processes & the State

government. The majority faction of councillors voted for a thoroughly

unacceptable draft LEP by a BARE MAJORITY OF 1 vote. 4 out of 7

councillors in majority faction receive a monthly allowance of $5000 (not

approved by SOORT) for their contribution to “amalgamations transition

working party” – is it more or less likely that such an incentive secures

votes?

200 residents attend meeting on 08 October 2015 Kensington Park re: Randwick Council’s

Failure to consult community – Kensington & Kingsford strategic review

● the establishment of new QANGOS so-called planning bodies like the

Greater Sydney Commission, appointed by the Minister of Planning, and

other government appointed authorities like the Planning Assessment

Commission (PAC), and the regional and district planning panels and

worse IHAPs does NOTHING to dispel the perception of state-endorsed

in-your-face corruption


4 / 24

● Future amendments ought to be strengthened by “corruption

prevention safeguards” to promote confidence in the NSW planning

system:

● Meaningful community participation and consultation

● Expanding the scope of third party merit appeals

● Providing certainty

● Balancing competing public interests

● Insuring transparency

● Reducing complexity

● One amendment to “promote confidence” in the planning system is

enhancing community participation, that is, actually genuine

participation where the community has a role in influencing final

outcomes; promoting strategic planning, increasing probity and

accountability in decision-making is aimed at favouring primarily

development applicants.

● Community consultation has been reduced to “we’ll tell you what we’re

going to do” – you can just lump it. TfNSW’s light rail community

consultation is nothing but an exercise in “STANDOVER TACTICTS” with

the hiring of a major domo who is little more than a thug. From

commencement TfNSW has presented as never being able to answer

resident questions; written questions taken on notice are NEVER

ANSWERED except with a uniform patter of repeated verbage, “we’re

building tomorrow’s A-Class transport’ and other weasel words

● Why do applicants need “an expanded scope of internal reviews” in

relation to integrated development and state significant development

when they have repeated pre-lodgement meetings with “relevant

planning authorities.” Why isn’t this right afforded to third party

objectors? Why are there no meetings with third party objectors

BEFORE the internal reviews?


5 / 24

● If it is accepted that merit appeals provide a safeguard against biased

decision-making by consent authorities and enhance the accountability

of decision-makers, then extension of third party merit appeals is a

natural disincentive against corrupt decision-making by consent

authorities. Yet, the Bill proposes no change to third party merits appeal

rights, which are not available if the Minister directs the PAC to hold a

Public Hearing for a State significant development proposal. As ICAC

rightly notes,

● The proposed amendments also enhance the considerable discretionary

powers of the Minister and Secretary of the Department of Planning and

Environment. Economic reasons are cited as the main justification for

these proposed updates, as discussed throughout the Planning

Legislation Updates: Summary of proposals January 2017. Ministerial

intervention is necessary to address delays and resolve conflicts in order

to avoid uncertainty and increase the costs for applicants, which may “in

turn deter investment.”

● Decision – makers accorded excessive discretion – with no justification –

there being NO STATUTORY CRITERIA TO GUIDE wide discretion

● What, if any, are the clearly stated statutory grounds for the Minister or

Secretary to intervene in the planning decisions of a council and

Independent Planning Commission?

● We seek statutory enactment of the ICAC’s recommendation that

“discretionary planning decisions should be made subject to mandated

sets of criteria that are robust and objective.”

● While the draft planning documents released by The Greater Sydney

Commission demonstrate an interest in balancing demands for more

housing stock against the need to respect and enhance its natural


6 / 24

environment and cultural heritage, we wait to see realisation of an

outcome

● The proposed new ‘Objects of the Act” ought to state in clear words “to

achieve ecologically sustainable development” within a framework that

recognises the need to mitigate and manage the effects of climate

change. We reject the watering down of such a clear object by limiting

the requirement to “facilitation”. ESD ought to be the fundamental

consideration, and the guiding priority for every planning decision taken.

● The NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer’s Independent Review into the

Decline of Koala Populations in Key Areas of NSW recommends a whole

of government approach to arrest the two major threats faced by

koalas: climate change and severe loss of habitat from urban

encroachment and industrial activities. Threats to habitat may contract

from the west due to climate change and east due to urban

development and habitat loss.”

● The economic rationale for expanding the discretionary powers of the

Minister and the Secretary provides no evidence to justify why longer

processing times for complicated approvals, such as environmentally

sensitive State significant or integrated developments, are deterring

investment. Absent any evidence, this is yet another ruse to justify

intervention on behalf of a favoured developer. NSW is in the middle of

an unprecedented building boom and many people are shocked at the

pace of development and alarmed by the pressure it’s putting on our

natural resources.

● We believe the Planning Legislation Updates should be seen as an

important opportunity to get the balance right. In Randwick LGA we are

subject to a vigorous pro-development agenda. We can’t afford a a

situation where poor planning decisions are made in haste in order to


7 / 24

accommodate a “projected” population boom – what exactly is the

evidence for these projections?

● Our local resident group and other Environmental advocacy groups and

are not anti-development. We welcome benefits of well-designed and

sensitively planned development that respects and enhance the state’s

natural environment and local environment – but we see NO EVIDENCE

of such ENHANCEMENT – but DESTRUCTION is wide in scale.

1. Enhancing community participation

First, we see no evidence of the “return of planning powers to the local

community.” On the contrary, community participation in the planning system

has, been weakened.

What actually happens, is a one-way flow of some (not all) information, a

diminished period of time to make written submissions, and little or no

influence on the actual decision – which is usually pre-ordained.

We argue that “effective community participation” with the power to actually

influence decisions and public policy is fundamental to improved outcomes –

but in terms of the project and the expenditure of taxpayer funds.

The necessity for genuine participation is exemplified by the shambles that the

CSELR project has descended into.

Had there been an opportunity for genuine participation from the outset in

the CSELR project, public input would have laid bare the lack of evidentiary

foundations for the government’s three (3) fundamental policy considerations;

the community knew and declared from the outset that NONE OF THE POLICY

CONSIDERATIONS WERE ATTAINABLE


8 / 24

We seek “meaningful participation” – Our question is How will the

content of our submitted written submissions INFLUENCE the eventual

decision? Is it just a tick /box exercise?

Randwick Council set up precincts for local residents, but actively rejects

the views of Kensington/ Kingsford residents, the largest and best

attended precinct in all of Randwick LGA. Randwick Councillors in

general meeting, openly declare they “must vote for the

GOVERNMENT’s PREFERRED POSITION OR RISK ENDING UP WITH THE

GOVERNMENT’s 25 STOREYS INSTEAD OF 20 STOREYS” – this is nothing

more than holding better informed, knowledgeable local residents to

ransom

There was no evidence before the council, other than the whim of the

General manager and some party political councillors seeking career

advancement, to support 20 storeys. Rhe council’s light rail consultant,

presented evidence to the contrary arguing that light rail could not

support increased passenger capacity, without bus boost. He

substantiated the views expressed by the transport minister’s delegate

M Prendergast in the “BUDGET ESTIMATES” 30 Aug 2016 that the

capacity of light rail will be REDUCED by the RMS safe loading factor.

Buses were needed to augment capacity. However running buses, is yet

another taxpayer expense and reduces road space for other vehicles – is

it the purpose of the planning laws to cause mayhem on public roads?

Disorderly planning?

The JRPP assumed without question the government’s propaganda that

light rail would increase transport capacity.

Thus, we return to the question – How is the substantiated written

submissions of the public influence decision-making?

Community participation plans, based on acknowledged principles are

only one step. Communities need to be involved from their own

perspective – they are stakeholders in the future and are left with the

aftermath of poor policy, poor decision-making.


9 / 24

Thus the object “to provide increased opportunity for community

participation in environmental planning and assessment ought to be

accorded overarching priority

To “community participation’ can only be ‘effective if it can influence

policy or an environmental or planning outcome

2. Completing the strategic planning framework

Greater Sydney Commission –the EPAA bill’s objects clause ought to have

incorporated the GSC’s stated priorities, if there is to be any uniformity across

government instrumentalities. That the GSC is Sydney-based is not an

unsurmountable problem which a nifty draftsman or woman could address.

Some priority objectives worth incorporating in support of ESD are:

● The need to mitigate and manage effects of climate change

● improve waterways health

● protect, extend and enhance biodiversity, regional and local open space

systemsincrease access to open space, conserve the natural

environment and enable healthy lifestyles and local food.

● minimise and mitigate environmental impacts through the efficient use

of energy and resources, recycling of water and materials together with

the development of renewable energy sources

● minimise exposure to man-made and natural hazards

A drafting example to ensure that ESD principles are effectively applied, is:

to achieve ecologically sustainable development, including by:

i) effectively integrating short and long-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations; and

ii) implementing the principles and programs of ecologically sustainable development described in section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991

in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment.


10 / 24

Local Strategic Planning Statements

In Randwick, the 20-year horizon of local strategic planning statements seems

to have been foreshortened to 5 years.

However, the DPE seems to demand more frequent REVIEWS. Having

completed an LEP in 2012, gazetted February 2013, suddenly we are subject to

a FORCIBLE planning control review in December 2016 – militated by political

party donors – their published list of donations proving to be THE ONE

ADVANTAGE – granting them the “merit” tick of senior DPE executives.

While local councils have a better understanding of the unique characters of

their areas and councils need discretion to develop planning documents that

reflect the concerns of local residents, councils need to be supported – not

overridden governments anxious to support their political donors.

A strong collaborative approach between state planning authorities and the

local councils can avoid situations where competing authorities are put in

conflict. For example, senior executives of the DPE could NOT EXPLAIN why

determined a certain Planning proposal had “merit” – when they were

proposing a 27 storey high-rise, with foundations in the Botany aquifer, at the

Todman Avenue/ Anzac Parade intersection heavily trafficked by Eastern

Distributor traffic directed to the UNSW and Randwick Hospitals every day.

This same intersection is also to accommodate a bus layover, on one limb. This

type of disorderly development only enhances resident fear of corruption.

These types of decisions can have the effect of demoralising local

communities, especially at a time when the Greater Sydney Council is seeking

close cooperation from the councils in the development of long-term strategic

planning documents for the districts. The Greater Sydney Commission

planning panels need to work closely with councils so these types of disputes

are avoided.


11 / 24

3 Better Processes for local development

Timeframes for Housing Approvals

We appreciate that the Government is under pressure to build new housing

and that delivering faster approvals can help it to achieve this goal.

We don’t support, the Premier’s commitment to “ensuring that 90 per cent of

housing approvals are processed within 40 days.” Arbitrary deadlines can lead

to poor development outcomes by putting council staff and councillors in a

position where they are pressured to grant approvals to meet unrealistic

benchmarks. We fear due processes for assessing important development

applications may be compromised.

Early consultation with neighbours

We support early consultation with neighbours before lodging a development

application is good practice “ allowing neighbours to have input at an early

stage in the design process on matters that may impact on them, such as loss

of views and overshadowing. It increases the likelihood that issues can be

resolved up front to the satisfaction of all parties. This means that fewer issues

are left to be resolved by councils or the Land and Environment Court, with

associated delay and cost.”

However, affected neighbours and other landholders ought to be encouraged

and enabled to draw on council and state resources to help them understand

the ramifications of approving the development. Often people have difficulty

understanding plans, and may inadvertently make poor trade-offs or not fully

appreciate the impact of the development.

But even though neighbours are consulted and approve development plans,

lodged plans should still be widely circulated by councils to all landholders


12 / 24

potentially affected by the development in order to ensure that all relevant

parties are made aware of the proposed development.

We do NOT support Reserve Power allocation to the Secretary of the

Department of Planning and Environment to prevent delays and resolve

conflicts between agencies to developments for which the council is the

consent authority

This is an overreach of the state planning department’s authority and will limit

the role of councils in working with relevant agencies and assessing important

developments. This amendment could water down the important role of

concurrences and referrals in the approval process, especially for

environmentally sensitive developments.

Any review of concurrences and referrals must involve extensive consultation

with all stakeholders and the development of clear and fair criteria for the

Secretary intervention.

We note the following observations of stakeholders about concurrences and

referrals in Stakeholder Feedback:

● NSW Government agencies are under-resourced to enable fast turn

around and the process often depends on which department or agency

and the working relationships between departments and councils.

● It is currently difficult to track a proposal through the process and it

would be helpful if public tracking and a contact was made available.

● Consideration is needed as to how the proposed model would achieve a

reduction of determination times and if this would lengthen the process

by adding another step.


13 / 24

● It can be difficult to align all conditions from various agencies, and if

licence requirements and other conditions were reviewed and aligned

would improve timeframes.

Preventing the misuse of modifications

We do NOT support amendments to address retrospective approvals for works

that go beyond the original consent.

We do NOT support misuse of s96 to support extensive DA modifications such

increased building heights & density and erasing BASIC features

We support amendments that would require a planning authority to explain

which conditions originally imposed on developments have been amended or

removed, and the reasons why the decision was made.

Improving the Complying Development Pathway

We understand that the government is keen to grow complying development

as a proportion of total development in order to speed up housing approvals.

We support amendments to:

● deliver a clear set of rules that make it as easy as possible for

participants to follow the complying development pathway.

● build confidence that complying development standards are being met;

● ensure that councils have the necessary resources and tools to ensure

complying development standards are met;


14 / 24

● and level the regulatory playing field between development applications

and complying development certificates.

We have concerns about the government’s intention to make “this pathway is

a key mechanism for ensuring that housing supply meets demand created by

population growth and demographic changes” for reasons outlined below:

● Timeliness of the approval process should not be the only criteria

applied to advocate the extension of complying development. We

believe that the comparison of the speediness of the issuance of

Complying Development Certificates (CDC) by private certifiers (average

of 22 days) to council development applications (average of 71 days)

must be scrutinised. Councils may have a myriad of very valid reasons

for their longer processing times. A thorough assessment of

development proposals should not be compromised to meet approval

deadlines. For example, boarding houses – many are non—compliant

with the terms of development consent

● As mentioned in our commentary on “early consultation with

neighbours, often people have difficult understanding plans, and may

inadvertently make poor trade-offs or not fully appreciate the impact of

the development. They need to be encouraged and enabled to access

council resources, and given the opportunity to object if they don’t think

a “complying development” is in sympathy with the character of their

neighbourhood.

We do NOT support extending complying development to medium density

housing, as flagged in the release of a draft Medium Density Design Guide

and Medium Density Housing Code for public comment.


15 / 24

We share the concerns of local government that a proposal to expand

complying development to riskier, larger-scale development could completely

change the character of a local area.

We agree with the assessment of the Greater Sydney Commission that

Councils are in the best position to investigate opportunities for medium

density.

We recommend that complying development not be extended to medium

density housing, noting that stakeholders feel that “only minor impact

developments should be able to go through as complying.”

Typically neighbours are not well equipped to understand the full implications

of medium density housing developments and their potential to affect street

amenities like parking, traffic congestion, tree coverage and open space. These

issues are best assessed by councils on a case-by-case basis.

We welcome the Government's plans to address some existing issues with

complying development, like requiring developers to pay a compliance levy

and strengthening enforcement powers to manage illegal work, including

temporary stop work orders. We strongly support the proposed amendment to

make it clear that where a CDC does not comply with the relevant standards in

the State Policy it can be declared invalid.

4 Better processes for State significant development

We note that “the Government has committed to the State priority of halving

assessment times for State significant development.” However, we are not

convinced that this goal can be achieved “in a manner that maintains high

environmental standards and strong community engagement.”

State significant developments are often complicated and have implications for

a wide range of stakeholders and the general public as a whole. The proper


16 / 24

review and assessment of these project should not be constrained by arbitrary

deadlines.

Transferrable conditions

We have concerns about transferring responsibility for enforcing development

consent conditions to the government agency issuing the lease, licence or

other approval.

Do these agencies have the expertise and experience to properly review and

monitor environmental and health risks for example? Will they be required to

consult with and seek assistance from the multiple agencies that originally

granted development consent conditions.

We welcome legislation that will specify that the amendments to projects will

not be able to permit greater impacts than those allowed under the conditions

in the original development consent.

We also support amendments to strengthen the Minister’s power to vary or

revoke monitoring or environmental audit requirements in existing approvals,

but only to ensure that conditions in older consents remain relevant,

contemporary and enforceable.

Given the justification of the proposed amendments and proposals is “to strike

a balance between reducing complexity and regulatory burden for proponents

of major projects, and improving confidence and accountability in the planning

system” we worry that powerful special interests could pressure the Minister

to revoke monitoring or environmental audit requirements because they are

too burdensome on the business.

We support amendments that clarify that the conditions of consent can

require financial securities to fund the decommissioning or rehabilitation of


17 / 24

sites to enable the environmental and community impacts of the development

to be better and more flexibly managed.

We also understand that consideration is also being given as to whether

special provisions should be made with respect to conditions relating to offsets

for the impacts of proposed development. These amendments would confirm

that conditions of consent can apply offset requirements to address any

environmental impact of a project, not just biodiversity impacts.

We urge caution in developing an offset

We agree with amendments to clarify the regulation of major projects.

5. FACILITATING INFASTRUCTURE DELIVERY (Part 5 concurrences)76 We support the proposal to require concurrence or notification of public authorities of activities under Part 5 within future infrastructure corridors. This requirement should be adopted in all relevant SEPPs. The anomaly in part 5 – mining exploration ought to be removed. It cannot be that exploration does not require public exhibition, development consent or a Part 4 EIS, as do other private development. The Mining SEPP ought to be amended to require Part 4 assessment and consent.

Improved environmental impact assessment

We support initiatives to improve the environmental impact assessment

process for major projects, and share the Government’s view that “poor

environmental impact assessment undermines community confidence in

planning decisions.”


18 / 24

We were recently alarmed, for example, that Santos submitted a 7,000 page

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Narrabri Gas Project. Given the

size and complexity of the statement, how can the public be expected to even

partly comprehend the full environmental implications of such an extensive

project?

We support plans to set up a panel of scientific experts to assist in the

assessment of a coal seam gas project near Narrabri, in northern New South

Wales. The government must insure that this panel is truly independent and

properly consults not only with the local and surrounding communities but

with national and grassroots environmental groups, which typically can provide

well researched opinions (Experts to assist with Narrabri Gas Project

assessment by Kerrin Thompson and Kristy Reading ABC News 21 February

2017)

The Stakeholder Feedback document highlighted stakeholder comment: “The

community views are generally well represented by umbrella organisations

(such as Environmental Defenders Office, Lock the Gate, etc). The input of

these organisations should carry significant decision making weight.”

The CSELR debacle – we do NOT support Part 5 SSI approvals – locking out the

community for the entirety of such taxpayer funded projects, where the

benefits accrue to private corporations and the losses ae socialised ought to

end. We believe that a completely new approach ought to be instituted – to

parallel the approach of the London’s Cross Rail. We recommend the HM

Treasury’s Green Book – which puts into place a thorough robust analytic

approach to provide BINDING GUIDANCE to all departments. See attachment

to this submission. (HM Treasury - The Green Book – Appraisal and

Evaluation in Central Government).

6 Fair and consistent planning agreements

We welcome the Department’s steps improve the policy framework for

planning agreements. We agree with specific principles, policies and

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/experts-to-assist-with-narrabri-gas-project-assessment/8290146

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/experts-to-assist-with-narrabri-gas-project-assessment/8290146


19 / 24

procedures being implemented to ensure that councils and developers

negotiate an agreement that:

● Demonstrating clear public benefit;

● that the process for negotiating the planning agreement is fair and

reasonable for both parties and is transparent to the broader

community; and:

● That the infrastructure identified in the planning agreement is informed

by an assessment of the needs of the local community.

We are concerned that the Government is putting too much pressure on local

councils to fund key growth infrastructure from private developer Special

Infrastructure Contributions (SIC), especially in “high growth areas like priority

precincts and priority growth areas across metropolitan Sydney, the Hunter

and Illawarra,”

We worry that the use of value capture schemes, especially ones that allow for

the council to share in the value created for certain rezoned residential

developments, will lead to poor planning outcomes. We note that Chris

Johnson, the chief executive of developer lobby the Urban Taskforce,

described Parramatta Council’s recently announced value-capture scheme as

"worrying" because it appeared to treat the planning system as an income

generator. According to Johnson "Parramatta's misusing the planning system

to generate funds for infrastructure, and basically the rules are being

manipulated to sell floor space." Parramatta Council proposes pushing ahead

with value-capture scheme by Jacob Saulwick, Sydney Morning Herald, 10

March 2017.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/parramatta-council-proposes-pushing-ahead-with-valuecapture-scheme-20170310-guv89m.html

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/parramatta-council-proposes-pushing-ahead-with-valuecapture-scheme-20170310-guv89m.html


20 / 24

We would also like to highlight community opposition to Waverley Council’s

arbitrary use of voluntary planning agreements seeking developer

contributions to the council in return for additional floor space.

Understandably, residents are unhappy about the environmental effects of

over-development in Bondi Junction. The wind tunnel is not conducive to

residential amenity and so has the loss of precious light and district views for

both residents and shopping centre users. Many people are critical of the

Council, putting its financial interests ahead of the interests of local residents.

(see also Sally Betts: the Waverley mayor who rules Sydney's east by Anne

Davies, Sydney Morning Herald 18 March 2016)

7 Confidence in decision-making

We agree that there is scope to improve confidence in decision-making at all

three levels of the planning system – local, regional and State significant

development.

8 Local Planning Panels

We support amendments to bring planning panels under one framework and

to update provisions on local planning panels in order to set basic rules about

their constitution, membership and functions, and to allow for the application

of consistent performance reporting requirements.

We have concerns about giving the Minister the power to direct a council to

appoint a local planning panel where this is warranted to improve the quality

and timeliness of planning decisions in the local area, or manage conflicts of

interest or corruption. We note the direction would also require the

membership of the panel be approved by the Minister, and set out the

circumstances in which the panel is to exercise the determination function.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sally-betts-the-waverley-mayor-who-rules-sydneys-east-20160316-gnkeav.html


21 / 24

Our Concerns

The Government placing too much priority on improving the timeliness of

development approvals.

Legislative measures to extend ministerial intervention into the

management of local councils; this is nothing but government overreach,

and an attempt to diminish the planning authority role of councils.

Improved systems can be put in place for councillors to manage conflicts

of interest or fears of corruption.

BAN property developers, real estate agents, significant property

investors from running for, and holding elected council positions

Donations to election campaigns ought to be capped

Model codes of conduct ought to apply to IHAP members and other

planning panels.

Ensuring delegation to council staff

Timeliness of decision making - we do not agree that more determination

should be made by council staff. The current system permits a majority of

uncontentious decisions to be made by council staff.

However, contentious applications ought to be permitted to be referred to full

council or a planning committee of council, if request by a minimum of three

councillors.

We do NOT agree that the Minister should direct more planning functions are

carried out by the council staff, this is a recipe for corruption. The role of

elected councillors ought not to be diminished and an avenue for community

input ought not to be closed down.

Randwick LGA does not suffer from excessive approval delays.


22 / 24

In any case the “10 per cent of applications determined by councils

themselves” probably warranted extra level of scrutiny. The most frequent

cause of delay are the developers themselves making numerous s96

modification applications to achieve, more and more apartments, with

residential flat building, post initial consent. It’s a ruse to GAME THE SYSTEM.

7 Better processes for State significant development

The Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) assesses State significant

development. Its approval of a number of controversial developments has

attracted criticism from both stakeholders and the public. A perception exists

that the PAC doesn’t always give proper consideration to the likely

environmental, social and economic impacts of the development - a statutory

obligation under section 79C of the EP&A Act (1979), or that it gives too much

weight to economic benefits at the expense of environmental and social

impacts.

Indeed the Auditor General’s performance audit of the PAC’s assessment of

major development applications stated that the PAC ”was not able to show

how it met this requirement in every decision we reviewed..and the degree to

which the Commission considered all matters under section 79C varied

considerably.”1

We welcome regulations to improve the PAC’s public hearing process so that

they become more interrogative and probing. We are also pleased that in the

case of State significant development, applicants will be asked to demonstrate

how they consulted with the community prior to lodgement, and that the

Department will require this as part of the applicant’s environmental impact

statement.

1

http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/latest-reports/performance/assessing-major-development-applications/executive-summary/1-executive-summary

http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/latest-reports/performance/assessing-major-development-applications/executive-summary/1-executive-summary


23 / 24

The amendments ought to re-instate third party merits appeals if a ‘public

hearing’ is held by the PAC. In fact, the amendments expand developers’ rights

to seek internal reviews of decisions about complex ‘integrated’ developments

or major projects, but this same right is not afforded to community objectors.

Opportunities for closed-door negotiations with developers on controversial

projects do not enhance opportunities for community input or instil public

confidence in the integrity of the planning system.

ICAC’s 2012 report, Anti-Corruption Safeguards and the NSW Planning System,

pointed out that “merit appeals provide a safeguard against biased decision-

making by consent authorities and enhance the accountability of these

authorities. The extension of third party merit appeals also acts as a

disincentive for corrupt decision-making by consent authorities.”2

We recommend an amendment to the Bill to give third party objectors the

right to appeal on merit to the Land and Environment Court in relation to all

development applications.

The Bill also proposes to eliminate the Independent Planning Commission’s

statutory authority to “review” planning decisions. We argue this is

inappropriate. We reject the Government’s argument that this proposed

change is necessary to avoid duplication and the change will help it to meet its

priority to “halve the time taken”. On the contrary, it avoids property and fair

scrutiny.

8 Elevating the role design

Randwick LGA suffers from a procession of monotonous residential flat

buildings fronting Anzac parade – that epitomise the lowest common

denominator in respect of “DESIGN”.

2

http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/documents/preventing-corruption/cp-publications-guidelines/3867-anti-corruption-safeguards-and-the-nsw-planning-system-2012/file


24 / 24

The recent “international design competition” chaired by the assistant

government architect put beyond doubt that the state government’s ideas for

DESIGN are NOTHING BUT MASSIVE OVERDEVELOPMENT – representing by a

uniform SAMENESS in the LITTLE BOXES delivered.

We submit Randwick Council’s SEPP 65 panel have deplorable poor taste.

It’s impossible to DESIGN out OVERDEVELOPMENT. Prizes were awarded for

removing detached housing with 6-7 storey flats, including flats around the

only open space in Kensington which suffers from a DEFICIT of open space.

If DESIGN is to be ELEVATED, we OPPOSE BOTH the government architect and

the UNSW city futures determining what constitutes GOOD DESIGN.

We would prefer a majority of Design panel members are selected from the

community.

Yours faithfully

R Mackenzie

Secretary KWKP

Documents

KENSINGTON & W KINGSFORD PRECINCT · 1. Enhancing community participation First, we see no evidence of the return of planning powers to the local community. On the contrary, community