Part 3A bites the dust, but Parramatta Council wants JRPP’s to go next

Parramatta Lord Mayor John Chedid

Parramatta Lord Mayor John Chedid

Bookmark and Share

by StreetCorner
12/04/2011

Parramatta City Council has been one of the more vocal critics of the previous Government's Part 3A Planning Laws so it is no surprise that they are among the first to welcome O'Farrell's decision to put his promise into practise and scrap Part 3A. This change should see more planning decisions return to Council hands, a move which is hoped will result in more weight being given to local impacts and community feedback.

But Parramatta'sLord Mayor, John Chedid, wants the O'Farrell government to go further and will write to the NSW Government requesting that Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPP) be abolished, along with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (AHSEPP). The Affordable Rental Housing Plan has been met with considerable backlash in the Parramatta Council area, with locals frustrated that this type of housing is being forced upon them by the State Government that doesn't comply with local planning standards and concerned about the impact it will have on local house prices and character of the suburbs.

Parramatta Council argues that the JRPPs were remove 'the voice of councils in the assessment of development proposals and also limits the ability of residents to raise their concerns.'

“Both these State planning controls were introduced by the previous State Government and have negatively impacted the way major local developments are considered,” Cr Chedid said.

“There is little evidence to show that these controls speed up the approval process, and the only thing they managed to successfully achieve was strip local communities of having a say when it comes to the future amenity of their neighbourhoods,” he added.

“I commend the new State Government for its recent action on Part 3A legislation; it is a positive step forward, and I’m also confident it will take Council’s position seriously.”

Cr Chedid also hopes to meet with Premier Barry O’Farrell and Minister for Planning, Brad Hazzard, shortly to better understand how the transition arrangements will work now that new Part 3A applications will no longer be accepted.

There are up to 500 Part 3A applications in the system, many of which were submitted in the months before the State Election.

“Councils need to be consulted on the nature of the transitional arrangements and which applications will be referred back to them for determination,” Cr Chedid said.

What do you think of the O'Farrell government's decision to scrap Part 3A? Should the JRPP's also be scrapped or do they serve a useful purpose? Share your views with the community here or publish your own news on Streetcorner by registering and clicking on the 'Submit A Story' button.


Report Post

Comments

Definitely agree with the new Government's decision to scrap Part 3A from the Act. Hopefully they will also implement a workable transition period that does not see Council's overwhelmed with the current applications in for processing. I also agree with Clr Chedid's comments that JRPP's should go next. Anyone who works in the Planning system in NSW know's these panel's are just an extension of the previous government's bureaucracy. Having been involved in a number of these applications myself, I can say that they do not speed up the process and deliver faster or better outcomes. Council's were doing better without JRPP's. The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP is also another joke of planning policy rushed in by the last government in attempt to tackle housing affordability. It has had no positive impact on any suburb, rather, it imposes boarding houses and state housing on local communities without a true voice being heard. Mr O'Farrell and Mr Hazzard, don't stop with Part 3A, abolish the JRPP's and the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, return the suburbs to the people and do so quickly!

Peter Harle posts

The JRPP's are another control mechanism that the previous state government used to control developments it deemed necessary but at the expense of local residents. The concerns of residents regarding cemeteries in the Liverpool area are a prime example. The vast majority of rural residents directly affected by a Crematorium in Greendale, and approved by 3 of 5 members of the JRPP, in an area where local residents rely on rainwater for drinking water are not in the best public interest. It seems the "public interest" aspect did not rate high enough despite hundreds of affected protestors. This is typical of Government appointed JRPP representatives, deliberately stacked so that Councils only have two of the five representatives, meaning Councils will never have the final say. Disappointing that such decisions are left to representatives not elected by the people most affected! Clr Peter Harle

The JRPP has no concern about locals, residents, communities and their view. Thanks to Peter Harle for bringing up the issue about the Greendale crematorium and cemetery DAs that were recently approved. How disgusting can the JRPP be in their lack of community consultation and disregard for the concerns of the rural commmunity. There is no reticulated (council) sewerage nor water, just a simple country road and residents relying on rainwater and now you have two major crematorium and cemetery DAs approved in utmost haste with no consideration for the locals. If you look up JRPP on Google then you will find so many other residents and suburbs that are angry with the JRPP and their lack of planning and consideration for locals' concerns -Liverpool and the three 6 storeys high apartment on a culdesac residential street, Croydon and the Catholic Health Care development fiasco, Greendale & Bringelly's cemeteries. Atrocious.

Having attended quite a few of these JRPP decisions, I can say only one thing, they are a travesty of justice. Panel members have already made their decisions long before they appear in front of the general public. They do not appear to take any residents opinions into account, nor for that matter do they listen to independent planners and experts paid for by residents.They are a compete and utter waste of time for residents who in some cases have to travel many kilometeres to attend.For some reason they appear to always side with developers who are not even residents in the area.In many cases,what developers are proposing as is the case of cemeteries and crematoriums in the rural areas do not benefit the community, rather they are a hinderence and cause a great deal of heartache, and in the case of councils,they are in actual fact a drain on councils already stretched reoures.The only one to benefit are the developers. Based on all of this, if someone could explain to me how JRPP's benefit the community or assist Councils, I would be most interested to hear.

Having attended quite a few of these JRPP decisions, I can say only one thing, they are a travesty of justice. Panel members have already made their decisions long before they appear in front of the general public. They do not appear to take any residents opinions into account, nor for that matter do they listen to independent planners and experts paid for by residents.They are a compete and utter waste of time for residents who in some cases have to travel many kilometeres to attend.For some reason they appear to always side with developers who are not even residents in the area.In many cases,what developers are proposing as is the case of cemeteries and crematoriums in the rural areas do not benefit the community, rather they are a hinderence and cause a great deal of heartache, and in the case of councils,they are in actual fact a drain on councils already stretched reoures.The only one to benefit are the developers. Based on all of this, if someone could explain to me how JRPP's benefit the community or assist Councils, I would be most interested to hear.

I have witnessed 2 JRPP meetings for the Crematorium & Cemetery at Greendale. The JRPP purely relied upon the Applicants and Councils insufficent, inadequate reports, took no notice of the communities professional Enviromental Scientist who spoke at the meeting and completely disregarded the community speakers who's fears of environmental contamination,traffic/road problems, loss of rural lifestyle and much needed farming land needed for Sydneys future food supplies. The panel made no attempt to ask council questions to clarify conflicting comments of speakers. Oviously on both occaisions the JRPP had made up their minds before the meeting began. The JRPP's bad decision now leaves the present and future rural community to live with their huge mistake. Abolish the JRPP now before more more planning diasters are made. Give the decission making back to local Councillors who are prepared to listen and challenge reports.

Clara posts

I would definately vote to abolish the JRPP having attended 2 meetings to approve Cemeteries and crematoria in Greendale. In the first instance the JRPP approved the DA for a crematorium to be built 150 metres from a family home despite community opposition and the known pollution emitted from the crematorium chimney that contains toxins eg. dioxin. The Greendale area has no town water supply and all household water is collected from rainwater. Who wants to drink water that contains toxins? The JRPP chose to ignore this problem.The quicker development approvals are returned to the local councils the better. It's too late for Greendale residents who have to suffer the consequences of inconsiderate,ill informed city dwellers who sit on the JRPP panels.

Peter Harle posts

The last JRPP meeting to deal with a cemetery on Greendale road at least considered more of the information presented by experts hired by local residents; that resulted in a deferment of the DA. Seems the applicant’s planners did not fully cover several important aspects of ground water effects on grave sites. Sadly, similar experts hired by residents for the initial crematorium on Greendale Road were not given the same opportunity to address their concerns and appeared to be ignored. The composition of new JRPP’s will be that Councils, meaning Councillors, will have a greater say in the outcome of the JRPP decision by appointing a third Local Government representative instead of the two under the current system. However, what it does highlight is the ability of Council to provide a thorough analysis of the development application. So are we really any better off, bear in mind Councillors are not necessarily the experts that Councils should have?


Your email address is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail

By submitting your comment you agree to our community agreement / terms of use.


Feedback Form
Feedback Analytics