This law change is just one of a series of changes to planning law whereby government has sought to take away more and more planning decisions from local government and put them into the Planning Minister's hands.

Other changes haave seen the setting up of special planning panels to again over-ride local councils.

In regards to the 2008 legislation, the Greens moved 94 amendments to the Bill aimed at maintaining existing environmental and heritage protections, removing conflicts of interest and restoring appeal rights. All of the Greens amendments were defeated after the Opposition joined the Government in opposing them.

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 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.

The Greens would like to overhaul planning laws to give power back over local decisions to the community and local government.

The Developers Map

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.

Sylvia Hale’s first speech to NSW Parliament, 7 May 2003

Sylvia currently supports many communities fighting overdevelopment.

Download our Overdevelopment_Kit.pdf (about 3Mb)

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.

Document Actions

Read Sylvia's second reading speech on the Bill: Bullet4

The Greens analysis of the Bill:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008

EP&A_Exposure_Billbill2008.pdf

 Background material:

Analysis prepared for the NSW Greens 19 May 2008
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.

Despite his anti-privatisation stance when is came to electricity, John Robertson did an about-face and supported the privatisaiton of prisons. Currently in NSW we have two privatised prions, Junee and Parklea.

Sylvia Hale continues to work with both prison officers and prisoner advocate groups to monitor private prisons and to work towards returning the privatised ones to public sector control and accountability.

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

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

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

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 about to introduce a new Residential Tenancies Act. Read the Greens submission on the review of the Residential Tenancies Act (response to Office of Fair Trading discussion paper #2).

The legislation was promised in 2009, and it now expected to come before Parliament in June 2010. Sylvia Hale and The Greens will be consulting with tenants' organisations when we see the final Bill. Although we believe the new legislation will be fair for tenants, there are still some outstanding issues:

Key issues for the Greens are:
* The lack of boarders and lodgers' rights
* 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 former 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.

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. New social housing built with the stimulus package money will help, as will new affordable rental housing via the National Rental Affordability Scheme.

However Sylvia has also argued that giving out grants such as the First Home Owners' Grant could make house rpices even worse as it stokes demand.  Increasing people’s access to credit or spending power just bids house prices up in a zero-sum game.

Labor in NSW  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.

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

We also need to encourage affordable alternatives to crushing mortgages and unaffordable private rents, such as co-ops, community land trusts and limited equity housing.

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.

Clearly we need to look at the whole of housing policy if affordability and security of tenure is going to be addressed.

This has lead to widespread community outrage when phone towers have been erected next to schools, sporting fields and in residential areas. 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?

There is a level of public concern about living and working near sources of electro-magnetic radiation.

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

Despite the Federal legislation, the NSW government can improve the situation by regularly inspecting mobile phone towers and enforcing the law.

Phone companies should have to negotiate residents about the siting of a phone tower where there are concerns.

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

The Greens put a motion to 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.

Communities that do fight hard can force the relocation of a phone tower. For example Oatley residents in Sydney's south opposed the siting of a mobile phone tower in Oatley Park  - and after a battle, they won.

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>

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 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 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

Currawong wharf

The Australian Pioneer Village

The Australian Pioneer Village at Wilberforce is a rare example of the worldwide interest in the 1960s and 70s 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 1950s, 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 appeared 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.

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.

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.

The Liberal councillors who wanted it sold eventually bowed to public pressure, and have agreed not to sell the village following a significant community camapign. The Friends now have a 10 year peppercorn rent over the Village and the Council have given $100,00 towards the upgrade of the Village. Local tradies volunteering time and effort to do up the village. Eventually the Pioneer Village will hopefully open its doors to the public and give visitors a taste of the past.

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.