Planning Reforms,
Department of Planning,
GPO Box 39,
Sydney NSW 2001
Our Association is the main environment group in the Eurobodalla Shire and has been actively advocating for sensitive development of the area for nearly 25 years. There are many aspects of the reforms which we applaud as they could improve planning and reduce uncertainty in the assessment process.
While we appreciate that there is a need to simplify the planning process we feel the proposed reforms ignore the main reason for planning -- to achieve ecologically sustainable development (ESD). All planning and determinations, no matter at what scale, should give equal weight to environmental, economic and social aspects of land use. The Act needs to be rewritten to make ESD its main objective.
Our main points are set out below and expanded in the body of our submission in relation to sections of the Discussion Paper.
1. There is a need to strengthen environmental provisions
2. Public participation should be improved
3. Planning and assessment should not be so standardized that the local environment is not given due weight
4. Regional and approved local strategies should be strengthened so that they are enforceable and direct other planning instruments
5. There should be objective criteria for the selection and environmental assessment of Regionally Significant and Part 3A projects
6. The scope for variations and use of SEPP 1 should be drastically reduced.
Strengthen environmental provisions
To help achieve ESD environmental provisions need to be strengthened and the recommendations of the NSW Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) will improve the proposed system.
Improve public participation
Another shortcoming of the reforms is the failure to address the continuing erosion of public participation. In fact the reforms will worsen this shortcoming, especially in the case of Part 3A projects. While we support reducing the need for expensive court action this right should be preserved as a last resort.
We support the recommendations of the EDO.
3.2 Gateway system for developing plans
Input should come from Council planners not just agencies. If the process is done properly it should plan for climate change, protect environmentally sensitive areas from development, protect heritage sites, ensure sustainable development and significantly reduce risk to development from hazards such as fire, flooding/sea level rise.
3.5 State initiated amendments to LEPs
These should not take place unless in co-operation with the local councils and in line with the Regional and Local Strategies.
We are concerned that the reforms are aimed at metropolitan areas and regions such as ours, the Eurobodalla Shire on the south coast, will suffer by being forced to use inappropriate systems.
3.6 & 3.7 Strategies and DCPs
Regional Strategies and department approved local strategies should be strengthened by amending the Act to give them statutory recognition. DCPs should also be strengthened. At the moment these “guidelines” are all too readily ignored.
However, we are wary of a statewide DCP unless it can be tailored by local planners to suit the local conditions.
3.7 LEP template
The template should be re-drafted to take account of the differences between coastal, rural and metropolitan situations.
State and Regionally Significant Projects
The Act should be amended to include objective criteria that the Minister must have regard to when determining the significance of a project.
4.2 Planning Assessment Commission
The PAC should have strong representation from the Coastal Council or similar organization for all coastal proposals, and from planning staff from the relevant Council.
Our Association also support the EDOs recommendations for improving environmental assessment of Part 3A projects.
The sections of the Act dealing with “critical infrastructure” should be repealed.
4.2 Joint Regional Planning Panels
The focus should be on implementing the regional strategies not on getting consistency. Regions are diverse and should be treated as such. For example, there should not be a repetition of North Coast type development on the South Coast. Planners from the Councils involved should be represented on the Panel as well as other relevant experts. The Panels should thus have at least some members who are not permanent.
4.4 Planning arbitrators
How will they be better than Councillors? How can arbitrators be made accountable to the public? However, if accountability can be assured, we support the use of arbitrators to reduce expensive court actions.
4.8 No further agency referrals
This is only appropriate if all environmentally sensitive and hazardous land, and land needed for connecting flora/fauna corridors is prevented from being developed at the planning stage.
Development conditions
Standardised conditions of development approval may help streamline the process but there needs to be scope for Councils to select appropriate conditions for the proposal and to impose specific ones if necessary.
4.11 Deemed to comply
We do NOT support this amendment . It should make allowance for delays caused by applicants not providing sufficient information and/or for agencies being slow to provide feedback. Even then it should be “deemed refusal” unless the proposal fully complies.
5.1 & 5.2 Exempt and complying development
We do NOT support a statewide schedule for these. Again the regional and local strategies, structure plans and style guides should determine what can be classed as exempt or complying. ESD should be the over-riding consideration.
5.3 & 5.4 Provisional compliance and “minor” non-compliance
This would undermine the certainty that the new system is supposed to be providing. If it does not comply in any way then a DA should be lodged.
Variations and modifications
SEPP 1 is routinely abused and should be strictly limited to very minor non-compliance for original proposals and for modifications.
The number of Section 96 applications allowed for any one development should be reduced.
Fees
We suggest that the fee structure should be an incentive to encourage fully complying development by having fees for such proposals much cheaper. DA fees should be higher for those requiring more council and agency work and should not just depend on the estimated value of the proposal.
5.5 Environmentally sensitive and heritage areas
These areas need special treatment and should not be included in complying development codes.
6.2 Accreditation of certifiers
We support the proposals to improve the training and expertise of certifiers. It should improve the outcomes for builders and for the environment.
6.5 Penalties for certifiers
Opportunities for buck-passing between private certifiers and council should be eliminated. Private certifiers should be penalized for their mistakes.
NSW needs a strong body to monitor the standard of work of private certifiers and to administer effective sanctions.
6.7 Private certification of land subdivisions
We do NOT support the private certification of land subdivisions. Council has the detailed information and should be aware of the bigger picture so can achieve more sustainable outcomes.
7.1 e-Planning
This could be very effective providing the initial data is thorough and accurate. However, technology changes so rapidly and there are so many different formats that it is hard to see how this will work in the long term and on a broad scale without being enormously expensive. We are also concerned that there will be many people unable to access the information.
8.0 Paper subdivisions
Where paper subdivisions occur on land that is environmentally sensitive, constrained by hazards (fire, flood, etc) or remote from the urban areas identified in settlement strategies, then the land should not be developed or traded and there should be no compensation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Discussion Paper.
Jenny Edwards, Committee member