Branding the Government’s 2005 amendments the “Godzilla
amendments”, the Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, told the Herald
councils, not the state government, should be approving development.
“There are clearly state-significant developments and this State
Government needs to be able to deal with those,” he said. “But we
think it has gone too far with Frank [Sartor, the Planning minister]. We would
much rather have the principles worked out with local government to make sure
there is decision-making at local government level as much as possible.”
The former planning minister, Craig Knowles, introduced the
“major infrastructure” amendments to the planning laws, giving the
state the power to call in – that is, take over – infrastructure deemed
state-significant or critical to the state’s economic development. The
provisions also provide a fast track, with most developments being processed
within six months. The definition allowed the state to call in developments
over $50 million, as well as developments previously dealt with under the
coastal policy.
But since Mr Sartor became Planning Minister there has been
a growing clamour from community groups about intervention by the Government.
High-profile developments such as the CUB site in Ultimo and
the Royal Rehab hospital in Putney have put planning laws onto the front page.
A rally to protest against the state’s planning laws is to
be held in the city tomorrow.
Mr Debnam’s planning spokesman, Chris Hartcher, said under a
Debnam government the number of developments being taken out of council hands
would slow from “a flood to a trickle”.
He said Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act would be used only for state government projects and for genuinely critical
infrastructure.
It would not be used for private sector proposals unless
strict criteria were met. These were likely to include when a council was
unable to handle the complexity of the development, when there had been long
delays, or when the development approval was urgent.
Mr Sartor said he called in only about 350 development
applications a year, out of 125,000 submitted to councils in NSW.
“Over 95 per cent of what we have done is, beyond
question, sensible,” he said. “Many [development applications] called
in are for coal and extractive industry, which councils say they don’t want to
deal with because they are so complicated. One-quarter are coastal.
“Sites like CUB and Royal Rehab had been around for
three to four years – that’s why I called them in.”
The Local Government and Shires Associations, which opposed
the major projects legislation, said it welcomed any proposals to return powers
to local government.
“But we would need to look closely at the
details,” said the association’s vice-president, Leo Kelly. “It’s our
intention to publish a response as a report card on Government and Opposition
policies before the election.”
Mr Debnam also said he would not continue the Government’s
push for standard definitions in Local Environment Plans, at least for regional
areas. “It’s very important to protect the character of communities,”
he said.
Mr Sartor said there had been “universal support”
from industry and councils for templates for LEPS, even if some councils had
quibbled over the definitions.