From the same Stable:

Planning bill open to abuse: report
Sunanda Creagh Urban Affairs Reporter | June 9, 2008

A STATE Government committee has raised alarm at 20 aspects of new planning laws, warning of "oppressive official powers" that may "trespass on personal rights and liberties".

The Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, says his planning bill, which cleared the lower house at 2am on the day the state budget came out, will streamline the rules on building work and cut development application processing times.

But the eight member Legislation Review Committee, which includes four Labor politicians, has raised "concerns about procedural fairness" and placing wide-reaching powers in the minister's hands.

Under the bill, which needs to be passed by the upper house before it becomes law, certain types of development applications will be processed not by councils but by either a new Planning Assessment Commission, a Joint Regional Planning Panel or a planning arbitrator.
-----------

Beware the housing code myths

Chris Johnson
June 9, 2008

Here are some numbers that will frighten those about to lodge a development application for a new house or renovation. At present in NSW it takes an average 78 days for a new house to be approved, with alterations and additions taking 57 days. One Sydney council takes 236 days to process an application for a single residential home and 156 days for alterations and additions.

Why is this? The answer lies in the merit-based assessment process in place for about 90 per cent of development proposals. Each project must demonstrate merit through complex documentation, and councils spend excessive time assessing this merit.

Other states have found a better way. Western Australia has had a statewide set of residential design codes since 1991, which cover about 90 per cent of residential development. Victoria also has a streamlined code-based system.

The incredible delays in NSW are being challenged by the State Government's draft housing code that is now on public exhibition.

The code describes setbacks, heights, privacy requirements, open space provisions and how to address the street. It clearly defines what can be built on a particular site so that the amenity of neighbours is protected. If an application complies with the code then approval will take only 10 days, having a significant impact on affordability by reducing the time and cost of the process.

If the rest of Australia handles housing in this manner you would think that there would be unanimous support for saving 68 days on average for what could be up to 40,000 applications in NSW. This could free up overworked council staff so that scarce resources could be devoted to the really complex applications or strategic planning.
-------------
Back to the first
The Local Government and Shires Association said the report supports its view that the laws are half-baked.

"These bills have clearly been prepared in haste, with considerable amounts of vital detail left out," said the association's president, Genia McCaffery. "The report confirms that the rights of local residents are seriously under threat."

Mr Sartor said the review committee's report criticised aspects of the new bill that were the same as the old bill.

He said it wasn't necessary to allow appeals of decisions made by the Planning Assessment Commission after a public hearing because public hearings were subject to significant scrutiny.
--------------
Gus: despite some council processes being slow and not always right, these processes are essential in a democracy. And not all are slow. Chris Johnson picks the worse cases, and there might have been good reasons for the delays, or refusal to allow development. So, crap to Sartor and his planning laws. 10 days to approve something that could change a neighbourly relationship or a whole suburb development style forever is an affront to decent caring people...

Appeals of decisions made by the Planning Assessment Commission after a public hearing not necessary because public hearings were subject to significant scrutiny?" Crap. What Sartor has produced is a "go directly to the Land and Environmental approval Office"... formerly know as the "Land and Environment Court" and the Public has little chance of being heard democratically.

March of high-rises threatens to wreck our beautiful suburbs

June 11, 2008

Chris Johnson is spinning his own myths to frighten people ("Beware the housing code myths", June 9). For more than a decade his department has been taking away councils' planning powers to force high-density development on communities.

The new bill contains provisions that shift planning decisions still further away from councils to panels appointed by his minister. He quotes statistics for development application approvals that are skewed by the lengthy assessments for proposals so bad they should never be put forward. He cites the worst cases in which councils grapple with bad applications, never those very quick approvals from the majority of councils.

He says historic properties are protected in conservation areas, but knows full well that Ku-ring-gai Council's heritage conservation areas have been consistently rejected for gazettal to allow demolition of heritage houses and billions of dollars of high-rise in their place. The onslaught of inappropriate, fast-tracked development is corrupting strategic town planning and destroying the character of suburbs, contributing to the confusion of Andrew Nimmo (Letters, June 10).

"Sympathetic" means not copying - Tuscanised cement-rendered McMansions and pseudo-Federation styles contribute to the stereotyping of the suburbs, creating what the urban planner John Mant has called "a homogenous, standardised, mindless metropolitan sprawl".

But developers know boxes without articulation are the cheapest way to go and can be crammed more easily into the multimillion-dollar spaces. Who cares about the setting or views? Buildings are pushed in so that neighbours look out onto walls rather than trees or gardens.

Change is acceptable as long as it is managed well. And demolition is acceptable as long as what replaces the old building is of better quality. This is not happening. One only has to view the real estate ads to see the one-size-fits-all high-rise stereotypes in Ku-ring-gai, Dee Why, Ultimo, Northbridge and on the Central Coast. Drive along the Pacific Highway following the North Shore Line and the destruction becomes starkly clear. Once demolitions occur, the damage is irreversible.

The bipartisan legislation review committee has clearly found flaws ("Planning bill is open to abuse", June 9). Frank Sartor's fellow ministers, residents, experts and councils say the bill is flawed. Even Sartor admitted it was only "90 per cent OK".

The Government must get this right, otherwise our beautiful suburbs will be destroyed.

Zeny Edwards President, National Trust of Australia (NSW), Sydney

----------

Gus: well said, man... My feeelings exactly, except I would add, until the sartorical development of Sydney is sidelined, I do not have much hope. At present, I have been invited to participate in an Architectural protection project that involves a lot of research and the book on top of the pile is "Demolished Houses of Sydney". As well, I still personally mourn the destruction of the magnificent facade on four streets of the Anthony Hordern that adorned the space now replaced with the ugliness of the "World Square" (tooted as better than slice cheese by some better informed people than me), opposite the cinemas in George street... A beautiful old unique large piece of work, albeit using cement rather than stones for precious mouldings, was demolished to make way for neon signs, billboards and badly conceived shopping arcades fronts that could be found in Hong Kong, . 

State MP Frank Sartor told a NSW parliamentary inquiry that while he was Planning Minister he had been lobbied by Labor Party powerbrokers and fellow MPs Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid.

NSW MP Frank Sartor told a NSW parliamentary inquiry today that, while he was planning minister, he had been lobbied by Labor Party powerbrokers and fellow MPs Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid.

Mr Sartor was being questioned during an inquiry into land dealings at Badgerys Creek that was initiated following the killing of Sydney businessman Michael McGurk.

He confirmed the lobbying after protesting that questions on the matter lay outside the committee's terms of reference.

-----------------

It is Gus' view that Eddie Obeid should never have had the right — let alone the possibility — to lobby a minister... Let's hope the Aussie press takes this issue at full value and start digging or "place some lamppost" shining on this grave issue... see toon at top...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/obeid-told-to-pay-12m-debt-within-seven-days-20120601-1zn1y.html#ixzz1waNjYFri

If you were wondering what the Gus arcane comment was about in the article above this one, you now know what I was talking about...

RADICAL changes proposed for the state's planning system to be revealed within weeks are set to include measures to curb the role of local government councillors in refusing or approving developments.
The Minister for Planning, Brad Hazzard, has revealed his concerns that local government councillors often determine developments according to what suits their personal political interests rather than on the merits of the proposal.
For the second day in a row, Mr Hazzard addressed a developer lobby group to discuss the green paper to be released next month which will outline a new planning system for the state likely to become law early in the new year.
Mr Hazzard told an Urban Taskforce lunch he believes local government councillors should be involved in setting planning frameworks for their area but should have no role in assessing individual developments.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/councils-to-lose-approval-rights-over-developments-20120627-212w8.html#ixzz1z2Tmfu2I

-------------------------

Objection to a proposal of whatever being built next door to your abode is a common right, that has been to this point being able to be debated in councils... This right of debate is being taken away from you mostly by arbitrary decisions that will increase the size of developments and the ability to tell you sod off... More bad laws in the making...