Developing democratic town planning

Urban development in New South Wales is in strife. Glossy planning documents abound and, at least in theory, the system is consultative and democratic. But it’s flawed.

Sydney is a growing and groaning city, expanding faster than its infrastructure and transport networks can keep up. It’s not that old Sydney town doesn’t want to grow; most people accepted this fact of life long ago. It’s that urban growth has been so poorly managed. Plans, strategies, visions and regulations abound, but with so many exceptions and exemptions the good ideas are being suffocated.

Urban planning, of course, is a normative discipline. It involves imposing visions and rules onto society to structure its spatial existence and control individual behaviour to maximise collective wellbeing over time. Yet attempting to achieve this through haphazard planning strategies that are riddled with loopholes is making a farce of the whole process.

The main problem is part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Act 2005. Under this, the NSW Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, can assume Development Authority (DA) for any development he deems “state significant”.

The 3A DA is too powerful, and inherently undemocratic.

State significance, according to the legislation, relates to any development related to any form of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, tourism, healthcare, transport, electricity, water or waste disposal. All that leaves is offices and residential buildings, and they’re “state significant” too if their value exceeds $50 million, or if they’re deemed crucial for achieving state planning objectives. Doesn’t leave much, does it?

The intention wasn’t wholly bad. Incompetent, slow and corrupt councils, often engaging in NIMBYism and pandering to vested interests weren’t good for development - especially if you’re trying to put waste sites, prisons, power stations and the like in the optimal places. Yet the legislation got carried away. There’s not much that can’t be called “state significant”, and the liberal wording of the laws has meant such declarations are nearly impossible to contest in the courts.

The pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction.

Technically, thresholds and criteria within the legislation keep the minister in check. Exhibiting plans, seeking local feedback and consulting with councils are mandatory. In practice, however, these have been vague at times, and feedback has been ignored on many occasions. “State significance” is largely at the minister’s whim.

Indeed, this all makes one wonder why we both with three levels of government. What’s the point of local councils if they aren’t scrutinising big development projects properly or giving all the stakeholders a say? What’s the point of state government if it’s merely rubber stamping proposals, pocketing the taxes and doing little to improve public transport and infrastructure?

The 3A legislation does have has some merit, though, and has been used for hospitals and wind farms. Most of the controversy lies in the residential and commercial applications. How individual residential developments can be significant to the economic and social wellbeing of New South Wales isn’t quite clear to many people, although it is to the Planning Minister apparently.

There have been some well managed cases. Rhodes Peninsula, an emerging high-density master planned residential development on the edge of Homebush Bay is one.

It’s being constructed on what was once some of the most contaminated soil in the country, a legacy of chemical industries that were once located on the site. Under the 3A laws, the state government assumed development control of the precinct and established incentives for developers to remediate (clean up) the contaminated soil. A $100 million grant for the clean-up was handed over, with developers also to receive ownership of the land upon certification of the remediation’s success by health authorities.

That’s one of the few good examples, but there are flaws. The suburb has a train station but most people still prefer to drive, and the few intersections into the site are fast clogging up. The government has formulated an array of planning requirements for the public domain, but there’s no guarantee that the developers won’t take short-cuts, or that the government won’t ignore any breaches of the planning guidelines. Local councils, essentially, are left to clean up the mess in the long-term if the infrastructure needs improving or problems if arise.

However, the contaminated nature of Rhodes Peninsula makes it somewhat unique.

Part 3A has been applied a lot more poorly elsewhere. The Carlton and United Breweries site in the south of Sydney’s CBD was declared “state significant” by the planning minister when City of Sydney Council took too long to make an approval decision.

An $800 million development, soon to house 2,800 residents and 4,800 workers, has just been approved for this 5.8 hectare site (0.65 hectares of which will be open space). Towers up to an incredible 118 metres in height will be allowed in a place where the only other building of such scale is the 120 metre UTS Tower, famed for its ugliness and huge shadows.

This was also despite vocal resistance from local residents and the city council. The final approval conditions were watered down in concessions, but the community consultation was farcical. Plans were exhibited for the minimum amount of time, local sensitivities were inadequately considered, and project was included in the Redfern-Waterloo development area, even though it’s nowhere near Redfern or Waterloo.

Other examples include the hamlet of Catherine Hill Bay in the Hunter Valley, which will soon find itself with tenfold as many people. The small suburb of Putney on the Parramatta River may soon see big apartment blocks going up, without necessary improvements to local roads to cope with the extra cars. The town centre of Redfern is about to get a huge makeover, despite protests from the local Indigenous community, urban Australia’s largest.

The problem with all these schemes, and many others, is that Sydney’s growth isn’t being managed as it should. Developers shouldn’t be relied on to provide infrastructure and “master plan” new developments, creating stark contrasts with surrounding areas. Only governments have the capacity to adequately facilitate large-scale residential growth in existing areas, through holistic transport planning, siting of schools and hospitals, encouraging employment growth, ensuring utilities are provided, and so on. Yet this is something the NSW Government has been particularly bad at.

Vision and action are both sorely lacking, with 3A devolving into little more than fast-tracking for big developments.

We shouldn’t forget that if communities aren’t sustainable or if infrastructure falls apart and needs maintenance in time, it’s taxpayers who ultimately pay to fix it. It’s imperative we do things correctly right from the start.

Essentially the problem comes down to a lack of democracy. Under the previous, more democratic system where councils approved everything there were problems, of course, however, this system still had its democratic deficiencies. Under the new system there is hardly any democracy at all.

A balance is needed between meeting the needs of the entire city in a sustainable way, and respecting the rights of locals. The way planning approval is structured needs an overhaul.

First, it should be mandatory for decisions about “state significance” to be made by a panel consisting of the planning minister, his department, local councils, and community and development representatives, weighted appropriately. These panels currently exist, but only in an advisory manner. The minister shouldn’t be allowed to override their concerns.

Second, there should be much stricter standards when it comes to residential and commercial developments. Requirements for being “state significant” need to be clear cut, and their application contestable.

Third, the quality of councils needs to be improved. More checks and balances to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest are needed. Councillors also should be given better education on planning theory and development processes. This may sound vague and patronising, but there are still many problems to be sorted out.

Fourth, planning must be more democratic. Ideally, parliament - the people’s representatives - should have the final say on “state significance”, and exercise adequate scrutiny, consultation and transparency.

Local councils regularly meet to consider and approve batches of development applications, so why can’t the state parliament act similarly? Big state significant development applications, for example, could be put before parliament in batches each month for amendment, ratification or rejection. This would be a good way to get clearance for big projects, such as power stations, water infrastructure or very large residential-commercial precincts such as that proposed for Barangaroo (East Darling Harbour).

Last, but not least, we need better planning structures. Sydney’s Metropolitan Plan had some decent goals, such as 70 per cent infill residential growth over the next 30 years, but contained few commitments and benchmarks. Public transport was effectively ignored, even though this should be the backbone of any redevelopment vision.

Part 3A decisions need to be more accountable and fair. The democratic legitimacy of our planning system needs improvement, as does the vision underlying how our cities, towns and regions should grow and develop.

Australian cities have much potential to improve themselves as they grow. Development needs to be kept in check by coherent, measurable aims and solid safeguards. The ultimate aim should be quality of life for everyone, not political expediency, developer tax contributions or bigger cities for their own sake.