New planning laws in NSW

Have an environmental cause? Announce and discuss here.

Moderators: Shari, collnarra, Butts, beach_defender, Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

New planning laws in NSW

Post by Damage » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:44 pm

Good one Frank

For certain types of development now you don't even need to go to Council. You will no longer be able to object to Council about what your neighbour intends to do over the fence; actually they don't even have to tell you what their up to; the first you'll know is that the builders have started work. As long as they comply with some basic development regs > thats all she wrote!

I can see murders and mayhem about loss of view or privacy. Seriously!

As bad and slow as the council system can be, going to the other extreme is only going to create more problems than it solves for mine.

I predict these new planning laws will be a catastrophic failure. Its like they want to lose the next election on purpose. :lol:

User avatar
craig
regular
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2002 12:33 am

Post by craig » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:55 pm

Councils...... better off you dont tell them anything. Ever. Almost guaranteed to not let you do what you would reasonably like to.
If you are capable of doing the work yourself then a hefty fine will put you on about par where 'those who cant' end up in total.....

Is Pittwater going to follow this law? They seem to be the strictest around.

User avatar
Fuschia
Duke Status
Posts: 17920
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Any Point Break

Post by Fuschia » Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:33 pm

craig wrote:Councils...... better off you dont tell them anything. Ever. Almost guaranteed to not let you do what you would reasonably like to.
If you are capable of doing the work yourself then a hefty fine will put you on about par where 'those who cant' end up in total.....

Is Pittwater going to follow this law? They seem to be the strictest around.

They've never been any different. Years ago I built a deck on the back of my house. Went to the Council with the plans and they said, not a problem, no permission needed as it doesn't have a roof and it's under a certain area in size. 3 years later when I wanted to sell the house they had changed the rules and backdated them, had to submit plans, get an inspection and of course, pay for the privelege.
On top of that we had put in and in ground pool and gone through all the processes correctly but one day before settlement my solicitor rang and said the buyer had found the pool wasn't approved. Seems the office who had done the final inspection hadn't done the closing paperwork. The council had even refunded my bond which they won't do until everything is finalised but they insisted I get an engineer out ot inspect the finished product and certify it as safe - pay through the nose, AGAIN!
batsards :!: :evil:

sizzla
Grommet
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:04 am
Location: manly area

Post by sizzla » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:15 pm

ok, the reforms aren't as simple as anyone being allowed to do anything. Its more the criteria for what constitutes exempt, complying and development that needs a DA. the purpose of this section of the reforms is to allow for more exempt and complying developement.

The thing is, there is very few applications lodged with Council which would comply with Council's LEP/DCP's, which would preclude them being either exempt of complying development. Also, there are VERY specific controls for exempt and complying development in the new housing code, which can be found on the planning NSW website. These codes are generally way more prescriptive than Council controls. If any of the requirements in this new code is not adhered with then a DA will still need to be lodged with Council.

Also, this lot of reforms do not apply to certain areas, such as foreshore scenic protection area, environmentall sensitive area, heritage areas etc.

i think these reforms are more bark than bite. But there will be more reforms coming which will de-politicise the planning process which is the best possible thing to do.

brendo
barnacle
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:32 am

Post by brendo » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:21 pm

its not open and shut youll get approval and it only applies to places with land in excess of 650m2, which cuts out alot of people, inc virtually all of eastern subs. there are stringent rules that must be complied with as well. its not a case of build what u want. its just gunna make getting approval alot quicker. if u r in the building industry its a god send. waiting 6 months for a da to get passed is b.u.l.l.sh.it.

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Post by Damage » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:52 pm

sizzla wrote: will de-politicise the planning process


So won't it now just be the private certifiers getting leant on by developers instead of Council planners (aka gong-gate) and alderman?

sizzla
Grommet
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:04 am
Location: manly area

Post by sizzla » Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:02 pm

well thankfully private certifiers have no power to assess any non-compliance. Frank originally wanted private certifiers to allow minor non-compliances but this has been scrapped. This system will still allow applicants and objectors to pressure town planners and other staff, but this has always been part of the system and in 99% of the cases the decision is made on planning grounds when determined by Council staff, whereas when Councillors make decisions on DA's, this decision is usually based on what decision would lead to more popularity.

User avatar
Freshie Boy
regular
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 3:10 pm
Location: anywhere

Post by Freshie Boy » Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:55 pm

brendo wrote:if u r in the building industry its a god send. waiting 6 months for a da to get passed is b.u.l.l.sh.it.


lol, if people submit dumb and unrealistic DAs that won't comply with planning regs, DCP and LEPs, they deserve to wait six months!

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Post by Damage » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:49 am

I think its safe to say the juries still out on this one.

Sizzla seems confident but I'm still not convinced. :D

It's D-day for democracy, developers and design

Elizabeth Farrelly
June 11, 2008

Deserve schmerve. I don't believe in deserve. Deserve is for children and advertising, as in do it (own it, lick it, eat it) because you deserve it. I mean, by what bizarre balance sheet do the people of Darfur deserve to be chopped up and burnt while we worry over sleep apnoea and interest rates? Deserve, without some godly guarantee, is meaningless. And yet, despite all that, I can't help feeling there is truth in the adage that we get the governments we deserve.

Last week's planning legislation is an obvious but hardly solitary example. Madame le Maire (la Mère) Clover Moore told Parliament this was "the worst legislation I have seen in 20 years". Then she told them why. It took a while. And Clover is not alone. The lawyer and planner John Mant, a veteran of planning-law reform across Australia, opened a recent speech with these words: "The minister's reforms are infantile. They remind me of a schoolyard loser who sets up an alternative game on the other side of the playground."

Provocative, sure. Enough to extract a parliamentary response. "It is classic Mant," drawled the Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, affecting unconcern. "He always uses that language. It is just Mant."

In fact it's totally not classic Mant. A self-described "ex-Labor apparatchik", John Mant has advised ministers back to Tom Uren (in the golden days of Whitlam's Department of Urban and Regional Development, fondly known as DURD), convened Paul Keating's Urban Design Task Force, served as an ICAC commissioner and, in various high-level capacities, devised many of the models on which the NSW system is based.

He is, simply, Australia's leading expert on development control. So "just Mant" doesn't quite capture it.

Mant's criticisms of the new legislation include conflicts of interest, undue ministerial control, loss of impartiality and the expectation that the legal profession - which the bill is trying to exclude from planning - will have a field day. "If this goes through," he told the ABC's Quentin Dempster, "the minister will have a statue [erected to him] in Phillip Street." Especially now, he adds, when "the Planning Bar is doing it tough".

And yet this warty new law was ramrodded through the lower house in the wee hours of Wednesday. And the clamour? The outcry? Well, precisely.

Sartor told Quentin Dempster on the same program that member surveys from the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the Planning Institute of Australia showed majority support for these changes.

They would. These reforms are largely developer-driven and, uh, remind me, who do architects and planners work for?

Sharing the Stateline screen, for instance, was Julie Bindon, NSW division president of the planning institute. That's not her only hat. She also heads the planning firm JBA, whose client list includes most of the big developers in town, from Stockland (for whom Bindon is running the very controversial Sandon Point development) to Leightons, Westfield, Macquarie Bank and Australand.

Onscreen, as president, Bindon appeared to oppose the changes, calling for "a full and proper public inquiry". What neither Mant nor Dempster could have known, but Bindon and Sartor must have, was that she had eight days earlier approved the official submission, assuring the minister that "the institute has generally supported the proposals".

Just as the urban taskforce was designed to look like a public interest body while selling special developer-access to government ears, the new law is designed to look fairer, but be less fair.

The removal of legal recourse is packaged as providing cheaper dispute resolution for "mum and dad developers". But Sartor has been at war with councils and the Land and Environment Court since his lord mayoral days. He's really replacing a system of arbitrators he cannot control - councillors and judges - with a system of hired consultants, summarily sackable by him, no reason given.

It's meant to stop third party anti-development challenges, like Matthew Drake-Brockman's against Frasers' development on Broadway or Peter Gray's appeal against the Anvil Hill mine approval. But in setting up a whole new quasi-legal system of its own it'll probably, says Mant, just further complicate the time-wasting legal bird's nest that is NSW planning. Hence the statue.

Parliament's own Legislation Review Committee worries at this "undue trespass on the right of procedural fairness and access to justice". But the same wolf in sheep's clothing approach has characterised the bill all along; from the first $250-a-place gathering last August to the exile-by-committee treatment of Sylvia Hale's Planning Bill (drafted to restore community input, bring Part 3A projects under environmental controls and ban developers' political donations) to the faux-urgency of this latest bill's parliamentary passage.

And so to the upper house, where the legislation now rests on the whim of the Shooters Party's John Tingle (who will of course transcend his own need for ministerial approval of the Southern Highlands shooting range expansion) and good old Fred Nile.

What, Nile may ask himself, are our just "desserts"? Pudding may be what we want but, four elections later, this bodgie, self-saucing government looks a lot like what we deserve.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest