This speech was delivered on 9 May 2013 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the original contribution here.
PLANNING REFORMS
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.47 p.m.]: In the lead-up to the last State election the then Coalition Opposition, through Brad Hazzard, its planning spokesman, made a series of promises to the people of New South Wales that any Coalition government would return planning powers to the community, thereby re-empowering the community, re-empowering local councils and giving ordinary people a say in planning. To deliver on that promise, the Government says that it has gone through a process of developing a new planning law, which is now set out in the Government’s white paper response that was released last month. Of course, when one examines the white paper, one sees that it is clear that this Government has no intention of returning planning powers to the community.
The best example is looking at what it has done on its watch. Under the white paper there are levels of strategic planning, and the key strategic planning document for any region is to be called a regional growth plan. That regional growth plan will direct and inform all of the subordinate planning instruments, all of the local council planning instruments and all of the subregional planning instruments. Under this Government’s plan regional growth plans will be determined by unelected nominees from the Minister for Planning, which is one representative from local councils.
The Government has said on page 74 of its white paper that the current Sydney Metropolitan Draft Strategy for 2013 will become the regional growth plan for Sydney under its new planning laws. What has the Government done about community consultation under the draft metropolitan strategy for Sydney? It put out a discussion paper last year in just the same way that Labor used to put out discussion papers when it was doing regional planning. In fact, the Government’s discussion paper largely mirrored the Labor Government’s discussion paper when it did its 2010 metropolitan strategy. Having distributed the discussion paper, the Government then invited submissions. Who did it listen to? Did it listen to the councils’ submissions that asked for more careful controls and respect for local government? No. Did it listen to the individual residents and citizens who put in submissions, saying, “We want to have a say. We want to be heard on our development.”? No. Who did it listen to? Of course, just like the Labor Government, it listened to the big developers. The Urban Taskforce’s submission stated:
- With the NSW Government returning planning powers to councils and the community, their role becomes critical. Councillors are generally very swayed by popularist anti-development groups. They need to do this if they want to be re-elected. As the community is generally anti-change and anti-development, most councils will generally support this position except for rare cases.
What was the Urban Taskforce plan to defeat this outbreak of democracy at the local government level? Its suggestion to the Government stated:
- Growth targets as minimums must be locked in to council planning documents.
It also stated:
- Under achievement of growth targets should lead to state intervention … More State Significant Projects must be determined by the state.
That is what the Urban Taskforce wanted out of the draft regional strategy. What did it get? This is what the Government delivered. The Minister stated:
- For the first time, minimum housing targets have been set for 2021.
He went on to say that the State Government would take over all planning decisions for so-called urban activation precincts—effectively State significant developments. They will start at Epping and then go to North Ryde and the rest of the city. There will be vastly more intense development, all proposed and approved by the State Government. That is exactly what the Urban Taskforce requested. What did the Property Council ask for? It stated:
- Metropolitan and regional planning in NSW is highly politicised, with fundamental changes to the vision for Sydney too often exposed to community sentiment—
we definitely do not want that—
- and political expediency. For example, the public debate about Sydney’s residential growth profile—that is whether it should be 70/30 urban/greenfield split, or a 50/50 split, or any other target—is currently shaped by personal preferences, but should be guided by economics or market demand.
What has the Government delivered? Has it delivered strategic planning and careful forethought? No, it has not. In announcing the draft metropolitan strategy, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure said that he did not want constricting planning rules and thinking. He stated:
- We’re trying to [be] less constrictive and restrictive and what we’re saying is the marketplace should have far more of a say in what the mix of housing is and where it should be … No one should be preoccupied by particular prescriptive formulas.
The Minister could not have been more on message with the big developers if they had written the press release. The community is being written out of these planning laws by the Government and we know who has been put in their place. Just like the Labor Government, this Government is allowing property developers to make the decisions.
