Developing democratic town planning

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.