Overview

The Bill that has finally been presented to the parliament has some positive aspects and significant improvements over the exposure draft circulated in April 2008 but many of the major concerns remain.

The Bill’s Positive Aspects:

The Bill has several positive aspects including:

• Tougher rules and penalties for private certifiers
• Strata law reform to reduce the ability of developers to exercise control over owners corporations

Major Concerns

The Billl’s positive aspects are overshadowed by its potential negative consequences, including:

· a reduction in environmental and heritage protections,
· a reduction in community involvement in development decisions,
· a massive centralisation of planning power into the hands of the Minister or panels appointed by the Minister,
· a decrease in council involvement in development decisions accompanied by an increase in council costs to pay for alternative decision-making processes
· an increase in conflicts of interest and the possibility of corruption and
· a reduction in council control over the setting and spending of development levies.

Source: Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008 Explanatory Note. A copy of the Bill including the full Explanatory Note and the Minister’s second reading speech can be found at: Bullet4 http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/F2D74B4003B6CF44CA257449001B64F3

Most significant changes from the Exposure Bill to the Bill tabled in parliament
· Deletion of the proposal allowing land to be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of urban renewal;
· Deletion of the proposal allowing accredited certifiers to approve minor non-compliances;
· Clarifying that libraries and community centres, along with volunteer rescue and emergency services, are “key community infrastructure” that councils can automatically levy for;
· Retain permanent legislative protection to prevent new development in Sydney’s drinking water catchment unless it has a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality;
· Expanding the range of people who can be appointed to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) to include those with legal, engineering, traffic and transport, and tourism backgrounds; and
· Allowing only the Department of Planning to appoint planning arbitrators.
· Applicants seeking a merit appeal of a refusal will not be able to choose between an independent panel, such as the PAC, or the Land and Environment Court.


Status of the Bill
· Introduced into Legislative Assembly 15/05/2008. Awaiting "Agreed in Principle" Debate which is expected to proceed in early June. Expected to reach the Upper House around 17 June 2008.

Cognate Bills
The following Bills are cognate with this Bill:
· Building Professionals Amendment Bill.
· Strata Management Legislation Amendment Bill.



What the Bill Does

(1) Environmental planning:

The Bill:
(a) makes provision for a gateway determination at an early stage of the planning process so that early decisions are made on whether a planning proposal will proceed, on the detailed community and other consultation required, on the time-frames for further stages of the process and on whether the final making of the plan can be delegated to the council, Director-General or other relevant planning authority, and
(b) requires explanations and justifications for planning proposals for gateway determination and consultation purposes, rather than technical legally drafted documents, and
(c) enables comprehensive and other major plans to be provided with more detailed community and agency consultation than minor plans, and
(d) enable independent advice to be obtained to deal with planning proposals that have stalled, and
(e) places on a permanent footing in the EPA Act provisions contained in a
regional environmental plan to prevent development consent being granted in Sydney hydrological drinking water catchment unless it has a neutral or beneficial effect on the quality of water, and
(f) makes other amendments to simplify the plan-making process.

(2) Development assessment

(a) establishes the Planning Assessment Commission (the PAC) and gives the PAC approval and planning functions relating to projects under Part 3A of the EPA Act and other planning, development consent, advisory and review functions,
(b) establishes joint regional planning panels (regional panels) and enables them to be given planning and development consent functions for parts of the State, the planning and other functions of councils whose functions are removed under the EPA Act (eg Ku-ring-gai and Burwood Councils’ planning powers) and other development consent, advisory and review functions,
(c) enables councils to appoint independent hearing and assessment panels to advise them about development applications and other planning matters,
(d) provides a right for applicants to seek reviews by planning arbitrators of determinations by councils relating to certain development applications and development consents (planning arbitrator matters) and to provide for a new third party right to seek a review of development determinations about certain residential and commercial and mixed use developments (to be prescribed by regulation)
(e) restricts appeals to the Land and Environment Court relating to planning arbitrator matters unless they have been reviewed by a planning arbitrator or the council consents to the appeal being made and to generally reduce the period for making an appeal to that Court in a development assessment matter from 12 months to 3 months,
(f) re-enacts the current limitations on the power of consent authorities to refuse or impose conditions on Crown developments, with certain procedural changes, and confers on regional panels power to determine disputes about council determinations about Crown developments,
(g) enables development consents relating to extended hours of operation of certain premises to be subject to later review and change,
(h) adds to the council functions that may be removed from councils for
misconduct reasons and exercised by a planning administrator, planning
assessment panel or regional panel,
(i) prevents administrative law and other proceedings being taken in respect of the exercise by the Minister of certain functions relating to the appointment of planning administrators or planning assessment panels or conferral on regional panels of certain council functions,
(j) requires the Director-General of the Department of Planning to consult
public authorities on environmental assessment requirements for projects
under Part 3A of the EPA Act only if required to do so by applicable guidelines,
(k) enables the Independent Commission Against Corruption to recommend the removal from office of members of the PAC or regional panels and planning arbitrators on corruption grounds,
(l) applies the provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1974 to planning arbitrators,
(m) makes other amendments relating to development assessment, development consents and complying development.

(3) Development contributions

The Bill replaces existing provisions of the EPA Act for development contributions with a new Part 5B that provides for community infrastructure
contributions, State infrastructure contributions, planning agreements and
development contributions for affordable housing.

Significant features of the new provisions are as follows:
(a) local infrastructure contributions (currently known as section 94 and 94A contributions) will be replaced by community infrastructure contributions,
(b) local councils will be limited to community infrastructure contributions for key community infrastructure (as prescribed by the regulations) and any additional community infrastructure approved for the council by the Minister, with provision for a council seeking such an approval to provide the Minister with a business plan and independent report in support of the application,
(c) councils, the Minister and other planning authorities will be required to have regard to specified key considerations for development contributions,
including affordability, in relation to community infrastructure contributions,
State infrastructure contributions and planning agreements,
(d) the Minister will be able to give directions as to the time within which
community infrastructure contributions must be applied,
(e) the regulations will be able to impose requirements for reporting by planning authorities about the determination, collection, application and use of development contributions and the provision of public infrastructure by them,
(f) transitional provisions will revoke all existing contributions plans on 31
March 2010, with provision for the Minister to remake existing contributions plans on behalf of councils to cover contributions for infrastructure that is not key community infrastructure when there are binding arrangements in place for the provision of the infrastructure concerned,
(g) a Community Infrastructure Trust Fund is established under the control of the Treasurer to fund the provision of public infrastructure by public authorities out of community infrastructure contributions levied in the North West and South West Growth Centres of Sydney.

(4) Certification of development

The Bill amends the EPA Act:
(a) in relation to the requirements applying to the issue of Part 4A certificates and complying development certificates, (the government is aiming for 50% of development to be exempt or complying and thus no longer requiring a development application process) and
(b) in relation to the obligations of certifying authorities and, in particular, the obligations of certifying authorities to give directions with respect to certain matters involving the carrying out of development and to report on those matters, and
(c) to require design certificates from appropriately accredited persons for certain aspects of development, and
(d) to strengthen the powers under the EPA Act to prevent or deal with
development that contravenes that Act, including enabling the issue of orders to cease building work or subdivision work, enabling authorised persons to ask questions of accredited certifiers and others involved in development and enabling consent authorities to require security to ensure compliance with development consents in the carrying out of building work and subdivision work, and
(e) to provide for the Minister to take action to suspend a council’s certification functions following an adverse report from the Building Professionals Board on the results of an investigation, and
(f) to make other amendments to the certification processes.

The Bill amends the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation 2000 (the EPA Regulation) in relation to applications for, and the issue of, Part 4A certificates and complying development certificates, critical stage inspections and fees for building certificates in certain circumstances.

The Bill amends the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 in relation to the issue of strata certificates under that Act.

The Bill amends the Strata Schemes (Leasehold Development) Act 1986 in relation to the issue of strata certificates under that Act.

(5) Miscellaneous
The Bill contains miscellaneous amendments, including amendments:
(a) to enact a scheme for the development of paper subdivisions, and
(b) to omit provisions relating to places of public entertainment following the integration of separate licensing provisions under the Local Government Act 1993 into the planning approvals and control processes of the EPA Act, and
(c) to remove or modify some requirements for concurrence and referrals in
relation to planning matters, and
(d) to provide for the making of consequential savings and transitional
regulations.


Background material:

Analysis prepared for the NSW Greens 19 May 2008
080519_EP&A_Amendment_Bill_2008_-_analysis.pdf

Read The Greens submission on Planning Law reform (Feb 2008)
Greenssubmission.doc

Read The Greens submission on the Exposure Bill (April 2008)
Bullet4 080423_SH_submission_on_exposure_bill.doc

Read The Greens analysis of the Exposure Bill (April 2008)
Bullet4 Greens_Analysis_of_EPAA_exposure_bill.doc

prisons system in the best  interests of society.

The prisons system should be part of a comprehensive strategy to deliver a safe community, including providing the services that  prisoners need to

minimise the risk of them re-offending when they leave prison. The government also has a responsibility to ensure a safe working environment for prison

officers and a safe living environment for prisoners.

Privatising prisons is selling out that obligation.

The NSW Greens have argued in the state parliament that the government should not  proceed with privatising the state’s prisons. The Greens have initiated a parliamentary inquiry into the costs to prison officers, to prisoners and to the community of privatising prisons.

For more information go to: http://www.stopthecelloff.org.au

With property developers donating so much money to the old parties we cannot be confident that state government decisions about local developments will not continue to be tainted by money politics.

The developers lobby are loudly applauding the government’s new powers to intervene in local planning decisions because they think it will mean they can get their developments through more easily without having to worry about local community opposition.

What you can do to help the campaign for community control over development:

Write to the Leader of the Opposition asking the Opposition to promise to reverse the government's amendmnets to the environmental planning and assessment Act.

Write to or ring or visit your local Member of Parliament to express your opposition to the government overriding local community decision making.

Affordable Housing
Tenants Rights
Adequate and affordable housing must be a priority

Greens make submission to the Inquiry into the Allocation of Social Housing
The problem with shared equity schemes...Sylvia's speech

Affordable Housing

In October 2008, The Greens introduced an Affordable Housing Bill to NSW Parliament. This Bill attempts to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to allow Councils to ask for affordable housing to be included within new private developments, if there is a need for affordable housing. Councils, if they choose, will be able to impose a levy of up to 25% on a developer, who can supply housing or equivalent value, which a council then must use to provide housing elsewhere in the area.

You can read Sylvia Hale's speech on this Bill

Part 1: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20081030044

Part 2:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20081113038

Tenants Rights

A fair go for tenants

The government is reviewing the Residential Tenancies Act. Greens submission on the review of the Residential Tenancies Act (response to Office of Fair Trading discussion paper #2).

It is unclear where the review process is up to, or when we will see law reform - probably sometime in the first half of 2009. Sylvia Hale and The Greens will be consulting with tenants and housing organisations once the content of the legislative changes are known.

Key issues for the Greens are:
* The lack of boarders and lodgers' rights
* There is no limit on the amount of rent increase in NSW
* The low vacancy rate and upward pressure on rents means landlords now more than ever have the upper hand over tenants.

Adequate and affordable housing must be a priority

Sylvia wrote to the Federal Minister for Housing, Tanya Plibersek, and the NSW Minister for Housing, David Borger, to urge the Rudd Government to take meaningful action on housing affordability.

Housing Ministers were meeting in Canberra in December 2008 to finalise a new National Agreement on Affordable Housing. However signs of a much-needed and significant funding boost are not good so far.

Supply side measures are needed, according to NSW Greens MP and housing spokesperson, Sylvia Hale.

“Economist Ross Gittins nailed it in the Sydney Morning Herald when he pointed out that stoking demand when it outstrips supply only pushes up prices. Yet many of both Labor’s and Liberal’s recent announcements focus on increasing demand and will therefore push up house prices,” said Ms Hale.

“I made this point to the NSW Treasurer in parliament when he was trumpeting shared equity schemes – that increasing people’s access to credit or spending power just bids house prices up in a zero-sum game.”

“It’s obvious Labor is totally confused about what to do.”

“On the one hand, Mr Rudd’s proposal for tax credits for people who invest in affordable rental housing is a much more viable approach to the problem. It will assist renters who are under financial stress without pushing up house prices.”

“On the other hand, Mr Rudd’s comments alleging that local councils are delaying land releases are wide of the mark. The leaked Treasury document tells the truth – that land release is marginal as a factor in housing affordability. Developers will hang on to their lots until they can sell at their preferred price,” said Ms Hale.

“Mr Rudd’s comments appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign by the Labor Party, on behalf of the property development industry which is funding much of its election campaign, to take planning powers away from local councils and centralise them in the hands of NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor.”

“Mr Sartor has shown no interest in policies aimed at genuinely addressing the affordable housing problem. He refused to allow inclusionary zoning for affordable housing beyond a pathetic 3% in new developments such as at the former ADI site at St Mary’s.”

“We need to increase the supply of affordable rental properties through a range of measures including increasing funding for new not-for-profit community and public housing, requiring at least 10% of all new housing developments to be set aside for affordable housing and offering tax incentives to increase supply at the lower end of the private rental market,” concluded Ms Hale.

The NSW government should follow the lead of its South Australian counterpart in taking action to stop the worsening crisis in housing affordability.

Ms Hale pointed to a South Australian law setting a target of 15% affordable housing in new developments.

“The SA law is a big step in the right direction. South Australian Greens MP, Mark Parnell, supported and strengthened it through measures such as placing covenants on affordable homes to ensure they remain affordable when resold.

“The SA legislation lays the framework for affordable housing targets of 15% of new developments, including 5% high needs housing. A variety of home ownership supply schemes are being developed.

Greens make submission to the Inquiry into the Allocation of Social Housing

The Greens have made a submission to the Inquiry into Social Housing Allocations.

It argues for a broadening and revitalisation of of social housing and an end to the narrowness of the 'Reshaping Public Housing policies of the Government.

It also highlights allocations being wrong for a tenant (for example, allocating a unit with a lot of steps for elderly people, or a small townhouse for a family with 5 children).

The Greens asked tenants for their views and received many responses.

The problem with shared equity schemes...Sylvia's speech

27 June 2007 - Hansard

DUTIES AMENDMENT (FIRST HOME PLUS ONE) BILL 2007

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.43 p.m.]: The purpose of this legislation is to extend stamp duty and land tax exemptions and concessions to eligible first home buyers who purchase a home valued at up to $600,000 in the case of a house or $450,000 in the case of vacant land, where there is an equity partner. This will extend the concession, or a proportion of it, to the first home buyer who is purchasing part equity in a home but will require an equity partner—for example, a financial institution—to be liable for a proportion of the land tax. The bill supplements the existing concession regime for first home buyers and extends it to a shared equity situation. The Greens do not oppose the bill. We recognise that this concession will make it easier for a few first home buyers to buy a home by entering into a shared equity arrangement. However, we believe it is important to look closely at shared equity home loans and the dangers entailed therein.
With this bill we are not talking about a scheme that creates a government-assisted shared equity home loan in which the Government becomes a partner of the home buyer. We are not talking about setting up a scheme similar to the schemes operated by the Western Australian and Northern Territory Governments. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 March 2007 Annette Sampson described the Western Australian scheme:
Targeted at low to middle income first home owners, the scheme allows the government to buy up to 40 per cent of eligible borrowers' new homes while the borrower pays for the remainder through a low deposit home loan. The home owners are able to repurchase the government's share of their property as their finances permit.

The New South Wales scheme simply extends—in shared equity arrangements where the partner is a relative, friend or, more likely, a financial institution—concessions that are available to other first home buyers. Although shared equity home loans may extend home ownership to more people, it is necessary to sound a note of caution about these schemes, especially where the equity-holding partner is seeking to make a profit out of the arrangement. The Labor Party, both Federal and State, has seized upon shared equity instruments as a potential cure for the increasingly severe housing affordability problem.

The State Treasurer and Federal Member for Sydney, Tanya Pilbersek, who is Labor's national housing spokesperson, increasingly encourage people to enter into partial equity home ownership. In fact, the Commonwealth is admitting that, in the absence of such schemes, the average family cannot afford to buy an average house. The "cure-all" approach that it advocates is an admission of failure: failure to recognise the dimensions of the problem confronting the community; failure to recognise the risks involved in shared equity schemes; and failure to espouse long-term initiatives that will resolve the problem rather than exacerbate it.

Instead of focusing on the problem—wildly unaffordable housing—Labor is saying, "Oh well, if you can't afford to own a house, you can own half a house through a shared-equity arrangement." Is it really expected that shared equity schemes will help new homeowners into the market? That seems not to be the expectation of the major promoters of the scheme. On 14 May, the day after Rismark International, in conjunction with Adelaide Bank, announced its new shared equity mortgage, the Sydney Morning Herald economics writer, Matt Wade, analysed the scheme in an article entitled "Equity trade-off for bigger home loans". Matt Wade said:

The chief general manager of Adelaide Bank, Stephen Small, said the product would target first-time buyers lacking the full finances for entry into the home-owner market. Equity finance mortgages can be used by borrowers to buy homes that are up to 25 per cent more expensive than they might have been able to afford using a traditional home loan.
But the most important market for the new mortgage may be second-time buyers who want to purchase a more expensive property, or existing borrowers who refinance to reduce their monthly loan repayments.

That is the view of Matt Wade. It gives the lie to the notion that the scheme will assist many new first home buyers into the market. Shared equity finance was first championed about five years ago by Christopher Joye and Andrew Caplin in their paper entitled "A Primer on a Proposal for Global Housing Finance Reform". It was published under the auspices of the Liberal thinktank Menzies Research Centre Limited as a policy prescription for the housing affordability problem. Joye is now Managing Director of Rismark International, which is a financial institution specialising in shared equity home loans, through which he clearly hopes to profit by exploiting out-of-control housing price rises.

Private shared equity arrangements have pitfalls. They rely on house price appreciation. It can be argued that they help to stoke house price inflation because they increase purchasing power. The more easily finance becomes available, the more people will be anxious to buy even part of a home. The more competition there is, the greater the inflationary effect. The result could well be a zero sum game rather than a real solution to the problem because new home buyers will still be competing with each other as well as with investors and with people trading up.
Moreover, financial institutions can be expected to offer shared equity loans predominantly in areas where they anticipate the greatest capital gain occurring. Financial institutions can be expected to participate in a shared equity scheme only when they believe the house will appreciate in value, they receive a 40 per cent share of any capital gain, they are liable for only 20 per cent of any loss and the homeowner shoulders 100 per cent of rates and maintenance costs. As Nick Holuguie writes on the Urban Mag website, such schemes must turn a profit for the banks and are dependent on capital gains. He says that given the many risks, the land would have to be such that the value would appreciate quickly and there would have to be value in having purchasers signed up even though they could not afford to purchase the whole property.

Clearly, if this Government wants to champion shared equity home-ownership schemes, it should implement schemes as other Labor governments have done. The Government is, after all, a far preferable partner in such arrangements because the desire to make a profit from the arrangement is not—or should not be—central to its concerns. Government is able to borrow more cheaply than the private sector and government can afford to carry the equity for a longer period. However, risks still remain. The low-income borrower may default—as happened with thousands in the discredited HomeFund scheme—and the whole operation will still depend on the property appreciating in value. Notwithstanding such considerations, it is true that successful government-based shared equity schemes do operate in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. As Annette Sampson noted in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 March entitled "Warning on shared equity":

The more traditional shared equity schemes involve shared ownership, with the lender taking a stake in your home.
Western Australia's First Start program is a good example. Targeted at low to middle income first home owners, the scheme allows the government to buy up to 40 per cent of eligible borrowers' new homes while the borrower pays for the remainder through a low deposit home loan. The home owners are able to repurchase the government's share of their property as their finances permit.

She distinguishes this form of shared equity from the mortgage developed by Rismark, and stated:

The Rismark mortgage is a loan, not an equity product, and you retain full ownership of your home. But instead of paying interest on the loan, you give up some of your home's appreciation.

The broader picture is that housing is unaffordable. Prices and rents are too high for low- to medium-income households to cope with without plunging into housing stress; that is, spending more than one-third of their gross income on housing or rental costs. On 11 May the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Miloon Kothari, released a report on his mission to Australia that focused on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living. The report compelled the head of National Shelter, Adrian Pisarski, to note:

The levels of homelessness and housing poverty in Australia are unacceptable and require serious Federal Government attention. It is disgraceful for a nation as wealthy as Australia to be the subject of such a damning D.N. report.

The Greens could not agree more. We have no State housing strategy, no national approach to housing and no national housing Minister. What we do have is a taxation regime that encourages speculation in real estate to the detriment of a large section of the population. Negative gearing rewards and assists those who seek to buy a second house at the expense of those who possess no house at all. While investors benefit from the many tax perks available to them, those who are renting pay off the mortgages of investors and, as a result, are unable to save enough for their own home deposit. Even if they can muster a deposit, many cannot afford the repayments, and the longer they save, the further the goalposts are moved as house prices ratchet up. The solution for these people, according to Labor, is to get into a shared equity arrangement and to buy part of a house. However, this approach is fraught with perils for the unwary. As Annette Sampson outlined:

Like reverse mortgages, equity finance mortgages can have wide-ranging consequences, not all of which are easily foreseen. Where appreciation is high, they can be expensive and they are more complex than standard home loan borrowings. Their terms and conditions can also be more restrictive.

As I noted earlier, shared equity schemes rely upon rising house prices. Every time an investor-buyer acquires an extra property, relying on borrowing against their already accruing asset base, they out-borrow, out-spend and out-bid the younger renter household seeking to buy their first home. Even in ower-cost suburbs, such as Mount Druitt, aspiring first home buyers are being outbid at auctions by vultures such as the Property Secrets group, which is snapping up repossessed or ex-Department of Housing properties. For others who are forced to move even farther from Sydney to the Central Coast in search of affordable housing, the price they pay is a two-hour commute to work to drive buses, staff train stations, work in hospitals, and mop floors, and then do a two-hour return journey.
The microeconomic benefit of shared equity home ownership that accrues to the homebuyer is home ownership and consequent security of tenure. However, at the macro level, these benefits may be non-existent if such schemes feed house price inflation. The Government must be proactive on housing. There is nothing stopping the Government, through Landcom, from providing a greater number of reasonably priced, smaller homes to means-tested applicants for purchase or rent. Landcom already has a limited program. The Greens believe it should be expanded significantly. In order to maintain affordability, the Government must either retain some equity or place a caveat on resale to ensure that when a property is on-sold only means-tested applicants are eligible to purchase it.

The Government has been threatening—or promising—an affordable housing strategy for ages. We have heard promises, but seen nothing apart from a few minor announcements on a little bit more public housing, or a pilot program here and there. Minor announcements do not a State housing strategy make. The Greens do not oppose this bill, but ask the Government to explain its overall housing affordability strategy for New South Wales—if there is one—and to address the macroeconomic implications of shared equity schemes, such as the inflationary effect they may have on housing prices.

The Developers' Map of Sydney, prepared by the Greens and showing some of the most problematic recent developments is hosted on the Democracy4sale website and can be viewed here.

Sustainable Western Sydney

Western Sydney is under mounting development pressure and has been under-resourced in services and infrastructure. At the same time this area bears the brunt of many of Sydney’s social needs.

“Today when people look at Woolloomooloo, The Rocks, and Kellys Bush they pay tribute to the residents and unionists who were prepared to sit in, stand up and fight off Sid Londish, his developer cronies, and the police. At the time the activists were criticised and attacked o­n all sides. Today there can be few people who do not rejoice in the protesters' success. It is an object lesson for us all. Those advocating social change are so often vilified and reviled at the time, o­nly to be lauded later o­n. The right to protest, to say that there are alternatives, to assert that this is not the best of all possible worlds, must be encouraged and supported, not denigrated and disparaged.”

Sylvia Hale’s first speech to NSW Parliament, 7 May 2003
Sylvia currently supports many communities fighting overdevelopment:

ADI Residents Action

Cooks Cove

No Dump Residents Association - Clyde Waste Transfer Station

Hunter Environmental Action Group

Kurnell Peninsula

Illawarra Escarpment Coalition

3G Mobile Phone Towers

Pyrmont Point Old Water Police Site

Residents Against Polluting Stacks

Sandon Point

Save Botany Beach

Save Bringelly

Save Jamieson Park
developer ac.jpg
Download our Overdevelopment_Kit.pdf (about 3Mb)

See more about some campaigns we are working on

The story so far

The site is 1500 ha containing one of the last remnants of Cumberland Plain Bushland, 120 species of bird, threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and a population of wild emus and 2000 kangaroos.

The Commonwealth government decontaminated most of the site but at least 6 of the most highly contaminated areas are still contaminated (and fenced off) with concerns about chemical residues and low level radioactive waste (probably from radar manufacture and decontamination).

In 2001 the State Government rezoned the land, allowing 8000 home sites. This has since been reduced to 5000 sites.

The developers Lend Lease plan to split the site into 3 blocks of housing development, with the rest of the site remaining regional park (850ha in total) for the time being. The contaminated areas are within the regional park.

The Commonwealth Govt with the support of the NSW Govt sold Lend Lease the entire site, along with two sites in Melbourne for $165 Million in January 2004. This was well below market value.

Blacktown Council, as consent authority for most of the site, (Penrith Council controls the far western end of the site) approved the Masterplan to build 5000 houses and gave approval in early 2004 for ‘stage one’ (the Eastern Precinct) to proceed. Road and infrastructure construction commenced in 2005 .

The removal of emu and kangaroo populations was highly contentious. NSW National Parks granted removal permits, and the Minister Bob Debus equivocated on the issue for months. Removal will continue as development proceeds.

Lend Lease has been negotiating with the NSW National Parks over a figure to administer the regional park. It has been reported they asked for $10 million, but settled for $6.5 million.

photo by tim cole

Take Action!
Don’t let the Government and Lend Lease think they can get away with destroying one of the most important natural areas in Western Sydney. Its not too late to stop the development. Send a message to the state and governments to stop construction and save the site.:

¨ Contact Premier Morris Iemma [email: thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au, fax: 9228 3934], Planning Minister [email: rockdale@parliament.nsw.gov.au, fax: 9228 4711] and demand they stop the development.

¨ Email or fax local Liberal Federal Member, Jackie Kelly [email: Jackie.Kelly.MP@aph.gov.au, fax: 6277 2369]



¨ Write a letter to the editor at the Sydney Morning Herald [fax 9282 3492, email letters@smh.com.au], the Daily Telegraph [fax 9288 2300 or email letters@dailytelegraph.com.au] and your local paper. Call talk back radio.

Sylvia attends a rally to save the ADI site in September 2004

This has lead to widespread community outrage when phone towers have been erected in or next to schools, sporting fields and residential streets. The kit details the ways that communities can combat aggressive mobile phone companies that are trying to profit from installing their towers (rent free) in a park near you.

What should governments be doing?

Sylvia Hale has called upon the NSW Government to use its powers and funding to support residents fighting the massive escalation in phone tower construction across the state. If the new 3G 'video streaming' technology becomes popular, every person in Sydney will be living and working less than 750m from a high-radiation mobile phone tower.

Ther is a level of public concern about living and working under high electro-magnetic radiation levels.

Federal laws exempt telcos from lodging DAs with councils if the tower is 'low visual impact', and the state government does almost nothing to enforce planning laws.

Despite the weak Federal legislation, the NSW government can improve the situation by regularly inspecting mobile phone towers and enforcing the law. It can also give special grants to Councils to respond to the barrage of complaints they receive from their residents o­n this issue.

So far, both state and federal governments have sided with big business and sold out communities who don't want radiation from phone towers beamed into their schools, parks and backyards.

In Parliament Sylvia has challenged the Minister for Local Government to provide funding and support to communities fighting 3G mobile phone towers.

This followed a Greeens motion in Parliament calling o­n the state government to introduce legislation banning the installation of 3G mobile phone towers within 300 metres of any school ground, and calling o­n state and federal agencies to address the current deplorable state of law enforcement.

Resources

Download our 3G_phone_towers_kit.pdf.

For a printed copy of the kit, please call 02 9230 3030 or email sylvia.hale@parliament.nsw.gov.au>

In the UK, Mast Sanity have heaps of useful information: http://www.mastsanity.org

The preservation and enhancement of our heritage is a central component of the Greens’ philosophy because the protection of our natural, cultural and built environments is a central tenet of ecological sustainability, a principle that underlines our approach to all policy.

The Greens have been involved in many recent campaigns to protect our heritage sites, from Callan Park to Currawong, the Yasmar Estate and Catherine Hill Bay the Greens have been active at local and state level, both on the street and in the parliament, in campaigning to preserve and protect our significant sites.

Some people disagree with our approach. The history of Sydney is littered with examples of individuals, companies, groups and governments that have taken the view that progress trumps all and that heritage must give way when jobs are needed and profits are to be made.

That battle of ideas has played out throughout Sydney’s history and the battle has not always been restricted to ideas. From Juanita Nielson through to Jack Mundey and a myriad of local resident and environment groups, people have shown their willingness to put themselves on the line to defend our important sites in the face of unsympathetic development or wanton destruction.

Many of our current heritage buildings and areas have been threatened with destruction, from the colonial buildings of Macquarie Street to the houses of the Rocks and the riverfront setting of Kelly’s Bush. Yet their protection did not bring the economy to a grinding halt, despite the prophesies of those who believe that any restriction on development is an economic crime.

The Greens recognise that heritage protection is a balancing act. Human societies must not only respect and learn from their past, they must also continue to evolve to stay healthy and to thrive in both social and economic terms.

It is important therefore that heritage assessment is rigorous and that heritage sites meet that general broad definition of having a significant contribution to make to our understanding of ourselves and from where we have come. But, once a rigorous assessment has been made, the protection we give to our heritage sites must be strong, although tempered with a suitable degree of practical flexibility.

There is no point, for example, in keeping old buildings in a state of permanent vacancy and long-term neglect and decay. Adaptive re-use is an important part of any heritage system and we must be willing to consider how best to achieve a balance of maintaining heritage values while allowing heritage sites to continue to be a living part of the society.

We should also recognise that, far from being a financial negative, heritage listing and sympathetic treatment can significantly enhance the value of privately held assets.

The period from the late 1970s to the 1990s saw some significant steps forward in strengthening both planning and heritage protection in this state.

Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen heritage policy turn away from protection and back towards “streamlining” and “efficiency” and the elimination of “red tape”– sentiments most beloved by people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Most of the recent changes in legislation and policy have been designed to make it harder to protect our heritage and easier to destroy it. To a large extent heritage protection is this state is now illusory.

What then are the Greens proposing for heritage policy?

Our heritage is about both where we have come from and where we want to go.

The Greens vision is to put in place a heritage system in this state whose prime objective is to accept and meet the responsibility that we have to future generations to protect and hand on to them the natural, built and cultural treasures that were left for us by our forebears.

First, in our view, the time has come to genuinely reform the planning system so that development decisions are made on the basis of the public interest, not who made the biggest payment to the ruling party.

Accordingly, the Greens continue to call for the banning of political parties or candidates accepting donations from the property development industry. The Greens have put our policy principles into practice for many years by refusing to accept donations from the property development or any other industry. But a voluntary policy is not good enough. Refusing to accept corporate donations should be mandatory and should apply to all parties and politicians at all levels of government.

Unfortunately, on each of the three occasions that the Greens have moved in parliament for such a ban, the Labor and Liberal parties have combined to defeat it, despite their stated commitments to banning donations.

We will, however, put the proposal up again and again until the Labor and Liberal parties vote in line with their rhetoric. Only then will we be able to remove the corrupting influence of political donations from the development process once and for all.

Second, we believe that it is time to recognise that the community values its heritage and its environment more than it values the profits to be made from unrestrained development.

Accordingly we will push for a clear and publicly supported set of heritage rules that are impartially and uniformly enforced, rather than the current mess of multi-layered rules that can be overridden at will by Ministers and bureaucrats and that are more often breached than they are observed.

To give effect to these rules we will continue to pursue the repeal of Part 3A of the EP&A Act and the limiting or removal of the powers of the state government to override environmental and heritage protections in order to approve large projects that breach the existing rules.

Third, we will pursue changes to the housing codes and the exempt and complying development codes to ensure that proper assessment is made of the heritage significance of a site before it can be destroyed.

Fourth, we are calling for the Heritage Office to again be made independent of the Department of Planning and in this context we support the Opposition’s proposal for a Minister for Heritage to be appointed and for that position to sit within the Environment portfolio. The Office must also be adequately funded and resourced if it is to fulfil its purpose.

For more detail read Sylvia’s speech to the National Trust Breakfast

Read the Hansard transcript of the debate on Sylvia's motion to protect Currawong

Australian Pioneer Village

The Australian Pioneer Village at Wilberforce is a rare example of the worldwide interest in the sixties and seventies in creating heritage places for educational purposes by transferring historic buildings from elsewhere to a single site.

The Village is sited on the curtilage of Rose Cottage, the oldest surviving timber cottage on the mainland. The eighteen individual buildings at the Village were re-located from the local area, and include a Macquarie-era slab barn.  It is almost certain these buildings would have been demolished and lost had they not been moved to the current site. Together they represent a great example of the diversity of domestic and rural life in the then colony of NSW.

The Village was listed on the NSW Heritage Register in 2004.  It was the idea of Dugald (Bill) McLachlan and his wife Marie. Bill, a veteran of the famous Redex car trials in the 1950’s, wanted to preserve part of the Hawkesbury’s historical legacy, and with active support from many members of the Hawkesbury community, he assembled the collection of historic buildings on this property, which fronts the Hawkesbury River. Though Bill died in 1971, his vision was carried on, and Hawkesbury Council purchased the property on behalf of the community in 1985.

This great community asset is now under threat, as at a behind-closed-doors meeting on 12 May this year, Liberal Party and three independent Councillors on Hawkesbury City Council agreed to sell the Village without prior advice to residents. Although Greens Councillor Leigh Williams was successful in gaining permission for local residents, including members of the Friends of the Australiana Village Association, to speak on this matter at the Council meeting, they did not have access to the contents or recommendations of the Council’s report.

The failure of Council to make publicly available a report that apparently recommends the sale of 9.6 hectares, or 27 acres, of heritage-listed public property is extraordinary.

A key reason for the refusal of Council to publish the report appears to be that the report assessed the business plan for the reopening and operation of the Village submitted by the Friends Association.

The Association is a community-based organisation formed in 1989 to support the Village. It has an active membership and significant local support.

The Association has spent thousands of dollars raised from community members to maintain the Village and ensure that it does not decline. The interest the Friends expressed in leasing the Village from Council at a nominal rent was one motivated by a care for the history and heritage of the Hawkesbury area, and with a view to engaging with local community members in its operation.

In 1987 27,572 people visited the Village, including students from 164 schools. As an educational facility that demonstrates the 19^th century way of life, the Village is unparalleled.

Residents of the Hawkesbury have every reason to be concerned, both at the lack of consultation by Council and by the failure to make publicly available the Council report.

By selling the property Council forever loses control over a significant slice of the history and heritage of the Hawkesbury and of NSW.

Recent changes by the State Labor Government to planning and heritage laws remove all effective public mechanisms to save the Village from destruction should a new owner choose to apply to the Planning Minister for the site to be removed from the Heritage Register.

The future for the Village may be extremely bleak if Hawkesbury City Council persists with the proposed sale. Sydney continues to spread and urban sprawl threatens Sydney’s valuable remaining farmland, much of it in the Hawkesbury area.

Of course, not everyone is upset with the expansion of Sydney, and I’m sure that any number of property developers will be eyeing this river-front site with great interest, even though it is flood prone.

The Council should act in the interests of the community it was elected to represent, rescind its attempt to sell off a unique capsule of Hawkesbury’s history and instead negotiate with the Friends of the Village and the community to re-open this valuable asset under community control and management.

Locals have also expressed concern at the relationship between local Liberal member Ray Williams and Mr James Kelly, who has previously sought to buy the Village. Mr Williams has stated that he believes the property should be sold. His constituents would like to know why he is supporting the interests of one man against those of the community he was elected to represent?

Bad Developer Awards

Richo wins, NSW loses

Former Labor Party Senator Graham Richardson has won this year’s Golden Toaster at The Greens Bad Developer awards night.

The Golden Toaster, named after the notorious Toaster development at Circular Quay, is annually awarded to someone who has made a conspicuous contribution to development in NSW. Mr Richardson beat off strong challenges from the Medich brothers and from the largest political donor in NSW, Bob Rose.

“Mr Richardson impressed the judges with his keenness to maintain his involvement in planning decisions, despite having no particular qualifications in this field,” said Sylvia Hale, NSW Greens MP and spokesperson for Planning.

“Since 1999 companies for whom he lobbies – Medich Property Holdings, the Walker Group, Bradcorp, and Hardie Holdings -- have collectively donated $1,400,647 to the NSW Labor Party ($278,400, $451,517, $385,030 and $285,700 respectively).

“Mr Richardson’s winning of the coveted Golden Toaster is a recognition of his unique gifts. He has, for more than 30 years, been a role model for fellow retired ALP Ministers and current lobbyists such as Bob Carr, Craig Knowles, Gary Punch, Carl Scully and Sandra Nori. We all know how hard it is making ends meet on parliamentary super.

“The role of lobbyists is not, as Planning Minister Keneally would say,  ‘I-L-L-E-G-A-L’, but reflects the triumph of influence peddling and corporate donations over merit-based decision making. A lot of contacts accompanied by a lot of cash never goes amiss when it comes to development approval in this state.

“It is rare for me for me to agree with former Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, but he was right to say that lobbyists should have no role in merit-based decision making. Indeed, most people would ask whether they should have any role at all,” Ms Hale said.

Click here to see

 Bad Developer Awards 2009 Presentation 

2009 Bad Developer Awards Winners

Dishonourable Awards

Honourable awards

The NSW Greens 2008

Bad Developer Awards

Wollongong Cleans Up at

Bad Developer Awards

Wollongong Council and the Illawarra’s corrupt developers have featured prominently in this year’s “Toasters” awards for bad development, hosted by NSW Greens MP Sylvia Hale.

Corrupt Wollongong developer Frank Vellar took out the coveted “Golden Toaster” as the Bad Developer of the Year for 2008.

The sacked Wollongong Council, which has had ICAC corruption findings made against eight former Councillors and staff members, was named Worst Council.

“I can’t think of any developer in the history of these awards who so richly deserves the title of “Bad Developer”, said Ms Hale.

“The corruption surrounding Wollongong Council has exposed the sleazy side of the property development industry. I guess they have done us a favour by showing just how compromised the planning system can become when developers start splashing around money to buy results.”

There were over 50 nominations across10 categories for this year’s awards.

“Its not surprising that we have had so many nominations this year. Encouraged by the state government’s new planning laws unscrupulous developers are outdoing themselves finding new ways to make a quid out of wrecking the environment and the heritage of our villages, towns and cities.”

Other notable award “winners” were the V8 supercar track at Olympic Park which won in the worst commercial development category and the proposed Tillegra Dam in the Hunter Valley for most environmentally damaging development, both of which have state government backing.

Proposed housing developments at Currawong on Pittwater and Catherine Hill Bay, south of Newcastle took out the metropolitan and regional awards respectively for worst residential developments.

The Coalition for Planning Reform, made up of various development industry lobby groups won the award for “most insidious industry group lobbying effort” for its support for Frank Sartor’s recent pro-developer amendments to the planning laws

On a more positive note the Camden Haven Eco-Village on the mid-North coast won the best development category and The Friends of Currawong and the Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association shared the award for best community campaign.

2008 Toasters Awards for Bad Development

Hosted by NSW Greens MP Sylvia Hale

The NSW Greens 2007

Bad Developer Awards

Harry Awarded For Crimes Against Amenity

The annual Bad Developer Awards, nicknamed “The Toasters” after the notorious East Circular Quay development, have been awarded this evening and the major winners include property magnate Harry Triguboff, the proposed Rose Bay mega-marina and the Anvil Hill coal mine in the Hunter Valley.

Harry Triguboff, who nudged out perennial winner Planning Minister Frank Sartor, won the “Golden Toaster for Crimes Against Amenity” for his call for the Royal National Park, south of Sydney, to be opened up for new housing development. Mr Triguboff dismissed those who objected to his proposal saying “If they want to see trees they can go to Katoomba.”

"I think the Golden Toaster award for crimes against amenity" reflects the popular response to Mr Triguboff's suggestion.," said the awards host Greens MP, Sylvia Hale.

" The suggestion of covering a national park with project housing deserves a very public razzing."

The proposed Rose Bay mega-marina won the metropolitan award for worst commercial/industrial development. The proposed marina will cater for large power boats owned by some of Sydney’s richest residents and has been likened to McMansions by the sea.

Most environmentally-destructive development (metropolitan) went to the Port Enfield inter-modal freight centre which is driven by the expansion of Port Botany and will see thousands of trucks travelling through some of Sydney’s most densely populated suburbs twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. The regional award went to the Anvil Hill coal mine in the Hunter Valley which will increase the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by a third and threaten surrounding water sources as well as the local horse breeding and wine-making industries.

Worst metropolitan Council went to Canada Bay council for its granting of public land to a politically connected private developer, a matter currently before the ICAC and for its approval of the demolition of a cottage in an urban conservation zone.

Most insidious industry lobbying effort was won by the NSW Urban Taskforce for its campaign to have the planning laws rewritten to remove local councils from decision-making about developments.

The Department of Lands won worst government department for its leasing of the Killalea state park for a resort development and its proposed sale of public park land at Coffs Harbour.

On a more positive note the best metropolitan community campaign went to Friends of Callan Park. Joint regional winners were the Save Killalea Alliance and Rising Tide.

In the media categories best commentary on development issues went to Elizabeth Farrelly of the Sydney Morning Herald, best investigation of a development issue went to Debra Jopson and Catharine Munro of the Sydney Morning Herald for their investigation of Sydney Harbour marina developments and best reporting of a specific development went to Scott Bevan of the ABC and Sarah Allely of the Illawarra Mercury.

2007 Bad Developer Awards Winners

Dishonourable Awards

Honourable awards

Media awards

The NSW Greens 2006

Bad Developer Awards

Aussie John’s Mansion & the “Cement Terminal On the Bay” Win Worst Development Awards 

The annual Toasters Awards for Worst Developments have been won by Aussie John Symond’s Mansion at Point Piper and the White Bay Cement Terminal in Balmain. The awards are to be announced at tonight’s Toasters Awards in Sydney. The Symond mansion won worst residential development, while the proposed cement terminal won the worst industrial development.

The Symond mansion includes over a dozen bathrooms, space for 16 cars and its own power sub-station. Host of the Toasters, Greens MP Sylvia Hale, described it as “unsustainable housing taken to a ludicrous extreme.”

The proposed cement terminal will be up to 55 metres high and 30 metres wide on the harbour shoreline next to the Anzac bridge.

“This development is a classic example of the state government having the power to override local community objections and imposing a massive overdevelopment on a site next to the harbour and Sydney’s Anzac bridge. It epitomises the way bad developments have plagued this city almost since its inception” said Ms Hale.

Other winners are:

Lifetime achievement in bad development: the NSW Labor government for its disastrous road tunnel developments, amendments to the Environmental Planning And Assessment Act to allow the Minister for Planning to override local community objections and approve large developments

Worst Council: Eurobodalla Shire Council for numerous bad decisions including environmentally destructive developments at Malua Bay and Long Beach and the Surf Road bypass.

Worst Government Department: Department of Planning, for approval of a 750 unit residential development on the site of the Rehabilitation Centre at Ryde that will increase the number of dwellings in the suburb of Putney by 50%.

Best Development: Bega Eco Neighbourhood Development (BEND) an environmentally sustainable community residential development on the outskirts of Bega on the NSW South Coast, featuring on-site solar power and water recycling systems.

Best Community campaign: CAPO - the Coalition Against Private Overdevelopment for their community campaign against the Ryde rehabilitation centre development which involved over 3000 residents and many innovative campaign tactics.

Best Council: Gosford Council for its affordable housing Local Environment Plan that protects long term residents of residential parks.

The NSW Greens 2005

Bad Developer Awards

Stockland named

“Bad Developer of the Year”

Worst case of environmental vandalism : Rosecorp

won the award for a proposed development on Wallarah Peninsula on the Central Coast despite breaching nearly every possible planning policy and regulation.

The Frank Sator Destruction of Community Award: Westfield

 for their shopping malls that hijack major public transport links, forcing commuters to bypass local shops and walk through a Westfield Shoppingtown in order to catch the train.

Worst Council : Nambucca Shire Council

For too many reason to mention

Worst Government Department : Michael Costa and the RTA

won the prize for motorway disasters such as the M5 East and Cross City Tunnel at the expense of public transport.

David and Goliath award:

 The joint winners for the most inspiring community activists were Residents Against Polluting Stacks (RAPS) and the ADI residents Action Group.

Worst of the worst : Stockland

for their development of a fragile coastal headland and Aboriginal burial and tool-making site dating to 5000BC at Sandon Point, North of Wollongong.