Re:
NSW Planning System Review Green Paper
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
the Green Paper.
REDWatch is a residents group that covers the
inner-city suburbs of Redfern, Waterloo, Eveleigh and Darlington. In this area
we have had planning experience in dealing with the City of Sydney Council and
the State interventions associated with the Redfern Waterloo Authority and its
successor the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority.
Based on our experience of dealing with both
local government and state planning mechanisms we would like to make some
comments on the Green Paper.
- REDWatch
is concerned that the Green Paper has not recognised the central role
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) should play in any revision of the
Planning Act. REDWatch supports the independent panel’s recommendation that ESD
should be the overarching objective of the new planning system. - While
REDWatch recognises the need to overhaul of the Act we cannot support the
overhaul if the interests of property developers and economic growth are put at
the centre of the Act rather than ESD. - REDWatch
is concerned that the Green Paper does not deal with the 374 recommendations of
the independent panel and in many places goes against these recommendations
without explanation. This approach makes REDWatch concerned about the
seriousness of the Department when it talks about improved community
engagement. Failure to respond to the independent panel recommendation is
likely to discourage future involvement in the new planning system as the
government’s commitment to real community consultation will be questioned. - REDWatch
laments the winding back of community participation in the planning system as
exemplified in the removal of the award winning Community Engagement Handbook
from the Department’s website in the mid-2000s. On one reading of the Green
Paper, despite its repeated references to consultation, the proposed new
planning system could see a further erosion of community involvement rather
than addressing this issue. If this reading is correct then REDWatch opposes that
further erosion of community involvement. - Removal
of the existing DA process and community input into it should only take place
when it has been demonstrated that a model for strengthening community
involvement in the new system has been established. This would be consistent
with goals 23 & 29 of the NSW 2021 State Plan - The
continuation of the current DA notification and community comment process
should continue as part of the transition process and should only be dropped
when it has been demonstrated that a new workable model with genuine community
participation has been established. - Continuing
the current DA / EA notification process provides a guaranteed system which
contains the necessary checks and balances until the new system is established
and proves it does not diminish those checks and balances. - More
broadly REDWatch is opposed to the industry call for special new transitionary
arrangements. - REDWatch
is also opposed to the Green paper’s strategic compliance certificate proposal
that proposes implementation of Regional Growth Plans can be prior to
developing Local Land Use Plans and local planning mechanisms. - If
Strategic compliance certificates are implemented they should be appealable by
any affected party not just by councils. - The
precautionary principle must be followed in both the new Act and in the
transitionary arrangements. - While
ESD should cover Economic, Environmental and Social impacts, REDWatch is
concerned that Social Impact Assessments do not play a larger role in the
existing planning system. SIA are essential for identifying the impacts of
major developments on the surrounding and future community and the services and
infrastructure that needs to be delivered to mitigate that impact. From
REDWatch’s experience in Redfern and Waterloo, especially in relation to public
housing, Social Impact Assessments developed with the community are crucial in
planning outcomes that works for the entire community. - REDWatch
is concerned that the Green paper puts major emphasis on streamlining the planning
system for developers and economic growth without balancing this with either
the responsibilities that the developers hold or the rights of local
communities who will be impacted in the development process. - Until
the robustness of the proposed new system is demonstrated code assessment
should only be allowed for low impact developments. - Code
assessment needs to ensure that developers actually follow the code in their
development if they choose to do a code assessment. There is almost an industry
norm for developers to push the envelope and it is important that the new
planning act ensures that under code assessment what is built is consistent
with the codes. - The
results generated by the codes need to be reviewed at regular intervals to
identify unintended code consequences. - In
REDWatch’s view consultants preparing EA and other required reports should be
accredited, and there needs to be harsh penalties against developers and
certifiers that allow buildings to be built that do not in the end meet the
codes that should have been applied. - If
code assessment is to be adopted then it should only happen for buildings that
fit within the precinct envelope. If a building exceeds the precinct envelope
then the entire building should be subject to a full Merit Assessment and not
just those bits that exceed the envelope. Such a step would encourage
developers to either work within the codes or to prepare for a full Merit
assessment. - It
is not clear what studies or process the Green paper expects under Full Merit
Assessment. We would propose that this should be similar to the current EA
process for State Significant Development or DAs, depending on the size and
significance. The requirements under the new Act should not lessen the needs
for adequate studies to support the project exceeding the areas controls. - By
their nature Full Merit Assessments exceed controls put in place for an area
under Regional and Sub-Regional strategies and there must be rigour in
establishing that any development which exceeds the controls can do so without
adversely impacting on the local area in any of the strategic planning aspects. - Code
assessments should be notified as is the current situation for DAs so
neighbours know what is going to happen near them. A mechanism must be put in
place to deal with any issues that may be raised which may not have been
considered in setting the Regional Strategic and Local Land Use Plans. - If
planning is to have community confidence it is important for the general
community that what is built complies with the planning controls unless there
is some good community reason. Currently the common practice of going over the
controls and expecting that the Land and Environment Court will allow them up
to an extra 10% undermines confidence in the controls. The new Act should
either make the 10% available to all developers as part of the controls or
strengthen compliance with the planning controls. - Mandatory
performance monitoring of the new planning system should also evaluate the
final built form against the starting proposal and the development compliance
as part of any ongoing monitoring and improvement process. - REDWatch
is concerned that the regulation of the building industry, which is central to
the final delivery of the planned product appears to have been quarantining and
from the planning system. The planning system needs to ensure that what is
delivered is consistent with what was expected. The failure to do this leaves
those who purchase property left with the cost of the failures in the system. - While
REDWatch welcomes the intended emphasis on strategic planning, transparency and
public participation we find that the Green paper does not provide enough
information for us to understand how, and if, the proposed system will be able
to deliver on these intentions. - Currently
the Green paper proposes community input primarily on a regional level – this
is a long way from the abodes of community members and their immediate
community and this increases the difficulty of engagement. - The
Green Paper also does not clearly address how strategic planning on a regional
level will mesh with the fine grain necessary to assess feasibility at the
local level. - As
an example. On a state / regional level North Eveleigh might look like a
suitable site for a major redevelopment. However at the local level the site
adjoins a heritage conservation area, it has a range of heritage constraints
including a heritage interpretation plan, and, according to its Concept Plan
approval, needs a TMAP to address traffic constraints prior to any
development. In spite of these local
constraints the Green Paper suggests it may be suitable for an Enterprise Zone
with very little if any development controls. - REDWatch
rejects the suitability of inner-city brown field sites for special zones with very
little if any development controls. - In
particular we reject the Green Paper suggestion that North Eveleigh should be
declared an Enterprise Zone. - It
is likely that at a regional level, as at the state level in the case above,
some of the constraints that impact upon a proposed development will not be
evident without local studies. The Green Paper is silent on how this strategic
planning will mesh with local site analysis and assessment for strategic use. - In
preparing the City of Sydney LEP, Sydney Council undertook a series of Urban
Design Studies for their major precincts. These studies dealt with the fine
grain of the inner-city areas as well as identified areas where the growth
required from the Metropolitan Plan could be delivered. This element needs to
be incorporated into Regional Strategic Planning if it is to properly reflect
local conditions and community aspirations. - The
Green Paper makes no suggestion as to how it proposes to generate community
engagement in Regional Strategic Planning. While we welcome the concept, we
wonder if the Department has a realistic idea of how much it will cost to run a
genuine community engagement process on such a large scale. Even within the
four suburbs covered by REDWatch, the RWA and SMDA have found this a challenge.
What constitutes effective community engagement has been one of the issues of
continual disagreement between REDWatch and the RWA / SMDA. - The
nature of the Public Participation Charter, the need for industry compliance
with the Charter, and the resources available for community participation will
ultimately determine if this is a genuine attempt to engage civil society or if
it is simply a mechanism for trying to keep residents away from the DA process. - The
problem is well illustrated in Redfern Waterloo with the developments near
Redfern Station. The RWA covered BEP1 controls in their newsletter and material
across the RWA area in 2006 as part of the planning controls exhibition. This
did not prevent many people from asking in 2011 how it was possible that an
eighteen storey building could appear next to Redfern station. From REDWatch’s
experience community consultation requires time and resources if it is to be
done properly and if community sign on is to be achieved. - This
problem is particularly acute in Redfern and Waterloo’s public housing estates
where considerable work is needed to help that community understand planning
issues and proposals for redeveloping their estate. There is a special need for
resources to be made available to assist parts of these communities participate
in the planning process. Existing HNSW tenant support programmes like Housing
Community Assistance Programme and the even more thinly spread Tenant
Participation Resource Services Program have not been able to deal with the
requirements of the SMDA BEP2 and the HNSW Master Plan discussions. With no
guarantee these projects will exist after mid 2013 public tenants will be even
further disadvantaged in dealing with the Planning System. - REDWatch
welcomes the Green Paper’s proposals for greater transparency using on line
mechanisms. We note however from our experience that consideration needs also
to be given to the needs of older people and those in public housing who have
low internet use and who are not at ease with this technology. - REDWatch
has found interest in introductory planning workshops and suggests that the
Department consider funding independent provision of such workshops to improve
community understanding of the planning system and how the community interacts
with it. Community capacity building is central to community engagement in the
planning system. Such capacity building is especially important as part of any
system change but it also important as part of an ongoing process that responds
to changing interest in the planning system within the community. - The
Green paper’s emphasis on reducing development timescales indicates to REDWatch
that it is unlikely that the time necessary for robust community consultation
will be built into the new planning system. While inefficiencies can be removed
from various parts of the development approval process, community engagement is
not one of the areas where this is possible without undermining the community
consultation process itself. - Community
engagement in strategic planning is important but community engagement takes
time. Unlike the development industry and Councils, communities do not have
paid people to analyse plans, consult stakeholders and write submissions.
Currently on State Significant Development Projects councils normally see
Environmental Assessments prior to the community but it has been our experience
that despite their resources councils have difficulty in turning around their
comments in the required timeframe. Yet it is expected that resident groups and
impacted individuals will be able to meet the required timeframes with no
resources. Making Development proposals public as early as possible will assist
community groups and those impacted have more time to adequately respond. - Based
on REDWatch’s experience in Redfern Waterloo we would argue that a longer
process including a non-statutory exhibition can generate greater community
engagement and better outcomes on statutory proposals. For BEP1 the built
environment plan and the associated SEPP were co-exhibited with no prior
community involvement, including by the Built Environment Ministerial Advisory
Committee. As a consequence the RWA did not gain the benefit of community
knowledge before making a statutory exhibition. It needed to make many changes
that were not subject to community review and progressed with elements that
could have been improved. In contrast for BEP2 the RWA/SMDA held a
non-statutory exhibition. While one month was too short for the exhibition, a
non-statutory exhibition has enabled the community to engage and raise their
concerns prior to the final exhibition of the plan. We understand that the
results from this input were considered useful by the RWA/SMDA as well as by
REDWatch who advocated the approach. - REDWatch
is particularly concerned that the proposed system excludes community input to
individual development proposals. This is of particular concern because the
Green Paper does not give us confidence that regional strategic planning will
adequately deal with fine grain issues within a particular community in a way
that will protect both community and neighbours’ amenity. - REDWatch
notes the expectation that strategic plans will mesh with government
infrastructure delivery plans; however we would like to see government
infrastructure delivery and planning approvals more clearly linked. - Strategic
planning must assess key cumulative impacts and deliver the infrastructure
necessary to deal with those impacts. If the Department approves a rezoning
such as Ashmore estate it must identify the impact through a SIA and then link
that development approval to the government’s own delivery of the necessary
infrastructure upgrades. - If
the government is unable to deliver the infrastructure upgrades then the
dependent significant development should not be allowed to proceed. It is
unfair on a surrounding community for the development to proceed and then for
the community to wait decades for the infrastructure necessary to mitigate the
impact of the development. This area needs to be strengthened in the Green
paper and the new Act. - In
the case of a number of developments in the same area a cumulative SIA must be
undertaken and the issues addressed in concert with all the developments. - One
difficulty we envisage with the regional planning focus will be the absence of
regional resident groupings to provide a base for participation. Many
resident’s groups only cover a suburb or a small area which they know very
well, and while they have an interest in broader LGA policy they are not
normally linked into broader LGA, Regional or State mechanisms in the way councils,
developers and the environmental movement is. The Department may need to
resource regional mechanisms if they are to reflect the broad expertise of the
regions residents groups. - One
of the difficulties in the current system encountered by REDWatch has been the
need to deal with both a local government and a State government
instrumentality often on the same matters. As part of the planning reform
REDWatch would like to see decisions relating to the Redfern Waterloo area
returned to City of Sydney Council which is well-placed to deal with complex
State significant developments. - Many
areas of the new planning system are unclear from the Green Paper and need to
be clarified. This includes knowing what is expected to be carried over from
the existing SEPPs, what studies are envisaged being undertaken for evidence
based Sub-Regional Planning Instruments and how existing protections on
sensitive environments will be preserved. - There
is also no indication of how emerging challenges like expected climate change
impacts will be handled in the new system. - We
trust that the issues we have raised will be fully considered in the further
work to develop a new Planning Act and System.
For
Further Information contact:
Geoffrey
Turnbull
REDWatch
Spokesperson
c/-
PO Box 1567
Strawberry
Hills NSW 2012
Ph Wk: (02) 9318 0824
email: mail@redwatch.org.au