Keneally wants to take more planning power from local councils and the community
Is this what Coogee Beach will look like in the future?
“Just who in their right mind would want to give more power to this State Labor Government?” asked Ms Hale.
“The Government has time and again ignored the reasonable concerns of local government and communities.”
“The Premier’s announcement indicates that the government intends to steam roller through highly unpopular projects such as motorway extensions like the M5, and developments that the Land & Environment Court has rejected, like Catherine Hill Bay and Huntlee.
“Major projects have long-term social, environmental and financial impacts on the State, and their success depends upon proper planning with input from all relevant agencies and the public.
“Without it, we end up with fiascos like the Cross-City and Lane Cove Tunnels.
“It’s a developer’s wet dream: no annoying planning restrictions, no councils or residents to worry about, no impact assessments; simply demolish, develop, pocket the profits and move on,” said Ms Hale.
Brad Hazzard, Opposition Minister for Planning also attacked the plan saying that “when then Planning Minister Keneally announced the introduction of special powers – and an Infrastructure Co-ordinator General – to ensure delivery of Federal funded projects she proclaimed,
‘I make it very clear that this bill applies only to infrastructure projects funded by the Commonwealth under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Once the projects are completed the legislation will be repealed.’
At the same time she gloated that the NSW planning system and State Labor’s amendments to it, ‘…can be relied upon to deliver projects in a timely manner.’
“If that is the case, then why now does Premier Keneally think NSW could benefit from extending the ‘steamroll over the community’ planning laws that she faithfully promised were temporary?” said Mr Hazzard.
The Urban Taskforce, representing Australia’s largest property developers welcomed the move by Kenneally to consider extending its fast track approval system to the private sector. The Taskforce’s chief executive Aaron Gadiel said that there had been “a blitzkrieg of planning approvals issued in record time for public sector proposals under new rules introduced last year.”
He said that private sector developers should be able to access the same “fast track” approval system as public development which in the last 50 days had approved 1,015 new public housing homes.
“Right now many private sector proposals are unable to get off the ground because of unrealistic council requirements,” Mr Gadiel said. Mr Gadiel argues that private sector developers of residential, commercial and retail projects should have access to the same fast-track system available to public sector projects.
Premier Kristina Keneally said yesterday that “NSW is a virtual construction site” because of the 1,300 development projects and 4,000 social housing homes that have been approved under temporary stimulus planning measures.
Despite Australia having one of the strongest economies in the western world it appears that the NSW Government is keen to extend its planning powers under the guise of stimulus measures and take even more control for planning from local councils , thereby reducing the power of locals to protest at inappropriate and insensitive development.
“I would like to evaluate the benefits of applying the principles of this legislation to other significant infrastructure projects in NSW, such as major transport projects, significant commercial or even appropriate residential projects,” Ms Keneally said.
Ms Kenneally had previously promised that the legislation, which applied only to infrastructure projects funded by the Commonwealth under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan would be repealed once the public sector projects where completed. The Premier now wants them extended to private sector infrastructure, commercial and residential development.
What do you think of the State Government allowing more development approvals to be "fast tracked" under expanded development power given to the State Government? Do you think the local community will have a say if approvals are able to be "fast tracked"?
Comments
Susan R posts
Isn't this the oldest trick in the book. Use a "crisis" to make a grab for power and to deprive people of the time to let the community know what is happening. State politicans rarely care about local issues, all they want is a big headline "another $200 million development approved". Kenneally seems to think that construction is the engine of our economy. How about some focus on education, health and transport infrastruture. Why is it always about making things easier for big developers. Who can we complain to about this?
Jess posts
When are people going to look at the substance of what Kenneally is doing rather than her hairstyle. More and more power is going to developers. Local councils will soon be defunct, only responsible for garbage collection and libaries unless the people wake from their slumber and stop all big development from ending up in State Government hands..god help us!
Jack Collins posts
POLLIES MAKE A GRAB FOR POWER NO ONE CAN BE SURPRISED THEY WERE JUST WAITING UNTIL YOU WERE COMPLACENT
Gerry spalding posts
The problem really is that councils are doing a bad job anyway they Liverpool council has consistantly failed the Liverpool community in favor of electoral influence. It will mean very little if the state takes over even the worst case scenario will see little difference to how locals are engaged.
Peter Harle posts
Despite the relatively fast turnover of DA’s in Liverpool Council, the State Government wants to manipulate the process, overriding anything that costs more than $10 million. Manufacturers and businesses are already applying directly to the government in order to prevent Local Councilors having a say in their regions development. Seems the rules are already being bent, a DA currently in the system for an Industrial process costing around $7 million has been referred directly to the JRRP (Joint Regional Planning Panel) where Liverpool Council has only one elected Councilor representative and the state government has three out of five. It’s fairly obvious the people don’t want the facility and it’s a safe bet that Councilors would have canned it, so by applying directly to the Government they have effectively taken it out of the hands of the people most affected.
By submitting your comment you agree to our community agreement / terms of use.