__________________________________________________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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?
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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;
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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.”
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ KWKP SUBMISSION TO EPAA BILL
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