For me there is a large gulf
between the paper’s “trust us” aspirations and what looks likely to be delivered.
In the end the only real
opportunity I can identify is that the Act is being reviewed and in that
process we could possibly achieve genuine improvements in the planning system.
We could also take a giant step backwards. As structured it’s looking to me like
Barry’s version of Part 3A rather than his election promise to “return planning
powers to the local community”.
My reluctance to declare any other
opportunities is right at the heart of the Act. It is the removal of the
underlying principles of Ecologically Sustainability Development (ESD) and
their replacement with the “main purpose of the planning system is to promote
economic growth”. This is a big change!
ESD is part of the current
Act and is referenced in 60 other NSW Acts. The More and Dyer review proposed ESD
should be the main purpose of the planning system and that the definition
should be consistent with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act
1995.
The Government not only
decided to remove ESD from the centre of the system they decided economic
growth should be at the centre. ESD is ditched all together and put in its
place is a nebulous Sustainable Development definition without the underlying
ESD principles.
With ESD removed from the Act
we have a very different planning rationale which can “have regard” to
environmental and social considerations, then cross across to the other side of
the street and continue on its merry growth orientated way. In short, we no
longer have an “Environmental Planning and Assessment Act”. The precautionary
and polluter pays principles among others are removed.
The current proposal
radically changes that balance in favour of the economic – Local Plans for
example cannot contain “overly complex or onerous controls that may adversely
impact on the financial viability of proposed development” – now there is a Pandora’s
box!
The main challenge in the New
Planning System is delivering what is promised in the White Paper and here the
Department is in the process of trashing community confidence before the new
system is even up and running.
The Regional Plan for Sydney
is already on exhibition, in the form of the Metro Strategy, without any of the
White Paper’s new “ground breaking community participation” processes for strategic
planning being in place. So when people get involved in the new sub-regional or
local planning they will find the priorities for their areas are already locked
in place.
Not a good start for system
promising “Community participation is at the centre of the new planning system”.
The new system covers itself though because the legislation says you cannot challenge
a plan because the promised community participation didn’t happen!
The Better Planning Network
asked the Minister to remove the Metro Strategy from exhibition and bring it
back with much fanfare under the new system to kick off his new community
involvement in strategic planning. The Minister declined, but extended the
exhibition until 28 June to try to get greater engagement.
You will find an online
petition at change.org protesting the Minister’s action. It currently has about
450 signatures while the Metro Strategy website totals only 76 comments across
all five online feed-back categories! [Figures at 13 June 2013]
A locked-in Metro Strategy provides
an opportunity for one of the new Part 3A like mechanisms – Strategic Compatibility
Certificates. Once the Metro Strategy and its City Shapers are in place a developer
can ask the Director General for a certificate to override the Local Environment
Plan to allow the quick delivery of say a large student housing development in
Darlington or Chippendale because those suburbs are part of the Strategy’s Sydney
Education & Health precinct.
Even after a Local Plan is
made a developer can apply for a rezoning under the new system or fall back on
the continuing State Significant Development stream of the new ‘Part 3A like’ mechanisms.
None of these would be consistent with strategic planning or be appealable by
the community.
Even within planned areas it
is possible to exceed the controls by going to merit assessment for the bits
that exceed the code. This is an invitation for developers to go for cream
without risking the rest of the development. If it gets knocked back they can
always go off to a lower cost Land and Environment Court!
A lot of faith is currently
being put in unseen codes and up-front strategic planning. It is my view that
the ability of people to comment on up to 80% of developments should not be
removed until the new system is in place and shown to be working and that the comments
should be used to refine the codes and the local plans.
If the new system is to
succeed it has to be built on ESD and deliver certainty not only for developer
but also for local communities. The proposals in the White Paper promises much
but at the same time removes checks and balances while increasing the
Minister’s power and patronage. The possibility for corruption issues as raised
by ICAC in their Green Paper submission need still to be addressed.
These are just some of the
challenges I see for the New Planning System. I would encourage you to look at
the comments being issued by groups such as the Environmental Defenders Office,
The Nature Conservation Council and the Better Planning Network and other peak
organisations.
Even if you don’t agree with them, the issues these
groups raise will need to be addressed if there is going to be real acceptance
of the new planning system and a rebuilding of confidence in the planning
system.
Source: Presentation by Geoff Turnbull to “A New Planning System For NSW: White Paper Panel Debate” organised by Sydney University Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning on 13 June 2013. Panelists included:Deborah Dearing (strategic planning and urban design
consultant); Stephanie Barker (A&E Design Studio); Geoff Turnbull (Redwatch); Sally Lewis (Walker Corporation); Giovani Cirillo (Formaly NSW Dept of Planning, Formally City
of Sydney , Practitioner-in-residence, Henry Halloran Trust); Nicole Gurran (Urban and Regional Planning, University of
Sydney). It was facilitated by Professor Peter Phibbs, Urban and Regional
Planning Program, University of Sydney, Director, Henry Halloran Trust.