Developing democratic town planning

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.