The "Bob Jelly Gazette" has its say on an Iluka development application

Below is a copy of an excerpt from the March 2016 newsletter put out by Iluka resident, Graeme Lynn and his small group of predominately enthusiastic pro-development fellow travellers calling themselves the Ratepayers Association of Iluka Inc.

Mr. Lynn, who besides being president of this particular ratepayers association and president of the Iluka Golf Club, is also a real estate agent.  

Readers may him remember from this premature online advertising of the proposed 162 lot subdivision at Lot 99 Hickey Street:

Local readers might enjoy comparing this North Coast Voices post with the ‘facts’ set out in the “Bob Jelly Gazette”*:

The Ratepayers Association of Iluka Inc is the second lobby group formed in Iluka (the first being the Association of Iluka Residents A.I.R. incorporated in 1998) and, appears to be listed on the Australian Securities and Investment Commission website under a different name to that on the newsletter - i.e. the Ratepayers & Residents Association Of Iluka Incorporated (2007).

This is not the first time that the ratepayers group has talked of this particular subdivision. It was discussed at some length at an afternoon meeting on or about 1 February 2016 and, I believe that meeting was attended by Clarence Valley councillors, Jim Simmons and Andrew Baker.

It is my understanding that Graeme Lynn chaired this meeting, spoke at some length about the development application and answered questions from the floor on the subject. Although I cannot be certain that everyone at the meeting was aware that he apparently has an expectation of handling at least some of the lot sales if this Hickey Street subdivision goes ahead.

Mr. Lynn also shamelessly played ducks and drakes with dates and numbers in a letter to the editor on the subject in The Daily Examiner on 14 January 2016:

Facts next time**

I read Annie Dorrian's letter to the editor (January 12) and I believe the letter should have started with 'once upon a time'.

Annie is having a go at council saying there is not enough time to research and prepare a submission or even comment on the DA even after the submission deadline has been extended to February 12, making a grand total of 50 days.

With 11 days taken out when access to all the documents were not available in Iluka it still adds up to 39 days.

Statutory regulation gives a minimum of 14 days so I think council and the developer have been rather generous.

Now for the signs that were placed on the land on Christmas Eve 2013 they were simply stating a DA application was forthcoming and expressions of interest were invited. Nothing sinister or illegal about that Annie.

The only reasons the signs were removed is because almost nightly mindless morons vandalised the signs until they were unrepairable.

The statement saying the land is a corridor between two national parks, well I found one but the 2nd one must be well hidden because it doesn't exist.

The land abounding this development to the south is zoned residential, the land to the west residential, the land to the north residential and 6A open space, which is the golf course, with the national park being to the east of the road into town.

Why would you want a corridor anyway between the two as I am sure you have heard of road kill.

Annie also states that it could increase the population by up to 500 people, which may be true but she failed to say this could take anywhere from 30 to 50 years to happen.

Just look at Sovereign Street and see how many vacant blocks there are after nearly two decades.

I don't know what Annie's motives are in writing her letter but next time it should be factual instead of the once upon a time story she wrote.

Graeme Lynn, Iluka

His letter drew this response a few days later in the same newspaper:

Negative impacts

My husband and I have been holidaying at Iluka this week. What a special place.

The house we were staying in had a copy of your paper from January 14th. In it there was a letter from Graeme Lynn. Graeme was addressing a letter from Annie Dorrian.

Through the eyes of an objective onlooker it is easy to see that every paragraph about Graeme's letter was defensive to the point where I ask myself, "Does Graeme have a vested interest in the proposed development going ahead?".

Adding 25% to the Iluka population whether now or into the future will have definite negative impacts on this beautiful part of a wondrous coastline.

Meg Leathart, Coonabarabran

FOOTNOTES

* Robert James 'Bob' Jelly is a fictional pro-development real estate agent and comic character played by actor John Howard in the long running ABC series Sea Change which ended in December 2000.

** Annie Dorian's letter to the editor, 16 January 2016:

162-lot subdivision

There are many questions about this subdivision.

Is it really honest for the Council's Environment, Planning and Community director to say they have already doubled the statutory exhibition period of 14 days (Daily Examiner 5.1.16) when the council rooms at both Maclean and Grafton were closed until the January 3, effectively reducing the length of time to read over 400 pages in 11 days?

Why was the DA not available on the council website or even in Iluka?

Thanks to community pressure the DA is now available at the Iluka Library which is open Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

Thanks to even more community pressure and media attention the submission date to comment has been extended to 4pm on February 12. Still not enough time to read, research and prepare a submission or even comment on the DA. We must have informed community scrutiny and enough time to do it.

Many people in Iluka are questioning the timing of the DA release on Christmas Eve and the fact that large signs on the Iluka Road advertised this development on Christmas Eve 2013.The signs were subsequently removed.

How is this possible or even legal before a DA has even been approved ?

Journalist Tim Howard's story states The Stevens Group acknowledges some environmental issues within this site.

Quite an understatement by the developer considering it is not just 'opposite a golf course' but adjacent to one of the last remnants of littoral rain forest in NSW and also a corridor between two national parks.

Large numbers of bird watchers, scientists and photographers frequent Iluka in the off season for the very reason that Iluka is unique and still home to more than 200 species of birds alone.

Do we really want to spoil this quiet, beautiful, unique place by increasing the population by up to 500, along with god knows how many more cars, cats and dogs.

If the community do want an increase in population this is the perfect opportunity for a developer to have a state of the art, sustainable, environmentally friendly development with stringent safeguards for native flora and fauna and larger house sites.

Any resident wishing to comment directly to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel can do so online as well as a submission to Clarence Valley Council.

Annie Dorrian, Iluka

Fire on contentious Iluka development application site

Iluka DA: Have your Say,1 March 2016:

This instance brings to mind certain Lower Clarence Valley fires (and other attempts at illegal land clearing over the last twenty years) which have sprung up on subdivision lands containing either koala habitat or tree/plant biodiversity considered worth protecting. Urban legend has it that these fires can be lit for the price of a carton of beer.

I would like to think the photographs above represent kids playing with matches and not arson by an adult. Hopefully I won't be proven wrong by a second attempt to set the bush alight on Lot 99, which is land found in the 162 lot development application SUB2015/0034 currently before the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel for initial determination.

The sad and sorry saga of an Iluka development application notice sign

Not good enough! say Iluka residents over at ILUKA DA...Have Your Say - and with good reason.

This is a notice that Clarence Valley Council "erected" to notify Iluka village that a development application ha been lodged for a 162 lot subdivision:

This is what the use of ordinary office paper, weathering and the failure of sticky tape very quickly did to this notice:

Culminating in the final blow:

Images from ILUKA DA...Have Your Say & Iluka residents

"ILUKA DA Have Your Say!" is online at Facebook

A number of Iluka residents have created a public Facebook page alerting the community to a proposed 162 lot residential subdivision bounded by Hickey and Elizabeth streets and, by Iluka Road adjacent to Iluka Nature Reserve and World Heritage littoral rainforest.

It can be found at:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=135425903503781&set=pcb.135430456836659&type=3&theater

One of the interesting posts contains this image of the formal development application notification sign which besides being so modestly sized as to be almost unnoticeable also has an incorrect submission period date so that any person reading it would assume that all chance to comment on this DA had slipped away.

Another post also points out that there appears to be no intention to create covenants prohibiting pet ownership for the hundreds of people who will reside in this proposed subdivision on environmentally sensitive land within 100 metres of a world heritage area. 

The mind boggles at such planning stupidity, given that vulnerable koalas and endangered coastal emus are known to use this parcel of land.

Something to think about as many of us frolic by the sea over the holidays

Something to think about from the NSW Dept. of Environment, Climate Change and Water as many of us in New South Wales frolic by the sea over the holidays:

The NSW Government has adopted a Sea Level Rise Policy Statement (NSW Government 2009) to support consistent adaptation to projected sea level rise impacts. The Policy Statement includes sea level rise planning benchmarks for use in assessing the potential impacts of projected sea level rise in coastal areas, including flood risk and coastal hazard assessments, development assessment, coastal infrastructure design processes and land use planning exercises.

These benchmarks are a projected rise in sea level (relative to the 1990 mean sea level) of 0.4 metres by 2050 and 0.9 metres by 2100 (Department of Environment, Climate Change

and Water (DECCW) 2009). The projections were derived from sea level rise projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) and the CSIRO (McInnes et al

2007). These benchmarks will be periodically reviewed…..

Depending on the rate and scale of sea level rise, the environmental, social and economic consequences, in particular within low-lying intertidal areas, are expected to be significant.

In addition to open coast recession and higher inundation levels, saltwater intrusion and landward advance of tidal limits within estuaries will have significant implications for freshwater and saltwater ecosystems and development margins, particularly building structures and foundation systems within close proximity to the shoreline. Existing coastal gravity drainage, stormwater infrastructure and sewerage systems may become compromised over time as the mean sea level rises. Sea level rise will also influence entrance opening regimes for intermittently closed and open lakes and lagoons (ICOLLs). The level of protection provided by existing seawalls and other hard engineering structures will decrease over time due to the increasing threat from larger storm surges and inundation at higher projected water levels….

Increasing mean sea level over time will have two primary impacts within and adjacent to tidal waterways:

 increasing still water levels over time and

 subsequent recession of unconsolidated shorelines.

Old Bar NSW

Belongil NSW

Kingscliff NSW

Forster NSW

Hawks Nest NSW

* Photographs found at Google Images

NSW North Coast development referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption

A tale the NSW North Coast has heard many times before – a metropolitan-based developer is allegedly using a handful of local investors to hopefully cloak his proposed over-development with a modicum of legitimacy.

West Byron at North Coast Nature

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE WEST BYRON LANDOWNERS:

01/10/2014

Dear Warren Simmons, Peter Croke, Gary Macdonald, Alan Heathcote, Tony Smith, Terry Agnew, Timothy Stringer, Ronald Geeves, David O’Connor, Kevin Rodgers and Richard Sykes,
We, the people of Byron Bay,  want to let you know that we believe you would be doing an irreversible harm to our town if your proposed rezoning and subsequent development of the West Byron wetlands goes through.
If this land is rezoned for intensive residential and industrial development, our lovely low-key, laid-back town would become a congested mess and look like so many other ruined coastal towns. The natural environment that brings people here must be protected; we will not accept more appalling traffic queues into town and an overcrowded parking nightmare.
We have asked, via your representative Stuart Murray, for meetings and for genuine community consultation but you have declined. You can do something about this terrible plan. You can stop it. For your property you can submit a more reasonable proposal to Council that avoids the most sensitive areas, enables an amount of development that will not overwhelm Byron’s ability to cope with it and still makes you sizeable profits.

Please consider the wellbeing of Byron Bay residents, the tourism industry, local koalas and the Belongil estuary and don’t attempt to sacrifice them for your profit. We will not accept this development.

Signed:

See full list of signatures here.

Echo NetDaily 1 October 2014:

The West Byron development proposal is to be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) today (Tuesday) by NSW Greens MLC and former Byron mayor Jan Barham.

Ms Barham told The Echo that the site ‘may have been wrongly defined’ and is worthy of investigation. ‘The community deserves to be assured that a project of this scale has not been brought forward for state approval wrongly.’

‘I believe that it is important that this matter is clarified before any assessment of the proposal by the government,’ she said.

The 108-hectare land is currently under planning minister Pru Goward’s determination for large-scale housing/industrial development, and sits just 2.5 kilometres west of the CBD on Ewingsdale Road.The Echo understands that Sydney-based developer Terry Agnew is by far the largest shareholder at around 80 per cent, along with other local investors.

Ms Barham says there appears to be ‘irregularities’ from when the site was defined in 2009 as West Byron Bay Urban Release Area for inclusion in the Major Development SEPP.

It comes after a meeting was held between Ms Barham, local state MP Don Page (Nationals) and members from the Byron Residents Group last week……

Coal seam gas survey for Yamba

Letter to the Editor in the Clarence Valley Review on 12 February 2014:

Richmond Valley Watchdog alerts Northern Rivers to NSW Government's search for two new spin meisters

From the Richmond Valley Watchdog’s post NSW Government Hires Spin Doctors to Flog Flawed Planning Laws on 8 September 2013:

Stop the NSW O'Farrell Government selling your rights to developers!

Better Planning Network email 14 August 2013:

Dear NSW Resident

Within the next 2 to 6 weeks, the NSW Government will introduce its new planning legislation to Parliament, legislation driven by powerful developer lobbies whose primary focus is profit-making. If it is adopted, the outcomes of this legislation for ordinary residents and communities will be dire. In particular, the legislation will:    

·  Remove our right to have a say on up to 80% of developments. This means that you won’t have the right to comment if your neighbour wants to build a new 2-storey house next door and you will have no right of say if someone wants to build up to 20 terrace houses in your street or even put up a block of flats nearby.    
· Use the planning system to drive economic growth and fast track development at the cost of our quality of life, environment and heritage.  Economic considerations are an important component of our quality of life, but they are not the only component. The new planning system is about ‘development at any cost’ and drastically reduces the need for decision-makers to consider the social, environmental and heritage impacts of new development.    
· Increase the risk of corruption associated with planning and development decision-making.  The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has warned that the new system will carry serious corruption risks.

In exchange for all this, the NSW Government says that we will be able to have a say in the planning controls that guide development in neighbourhoods. However, the Minister will have broad discretion to amend these planning controls without community consultation.  And developers will be able to apply to exceed these controls as well.

Act now to stop this legislation from being introduced to Parliament. Sign our petition To the Premier of NSW - the Hon. Barry O’Farrell, MP: Withdraw the NSW Government’s Planning Bills! 

Yesterday (13/08/13), the SMH reported that Mr Sam Haddad, Director General of Planning and Infrastructure, had admitted that:

"...a proposed overhaul of planning laws has ''gone further than the government intended'', reducing the community's ability to fight bad decisions" and that “department staff may have unintentionally spread ''inaccurate or misleading information'' about the changes, touted as the biggest overhaul of the state's planning system in more than 30 years."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/top-official-admits-errors-over-draft-planning-laws-20130812-2rsht.html#ixzz2bsrz6oBe and also at http:///www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/53324/ .

This admission by the State’s top planning official is simply unacceptable and the Government’s legislation must be withdrawn immediately, re-drafted and re-exhibited, with accurate information provided on its effect on communities, our environment and heritage.

Please help keep our Government honest and sign our petition To the Premier of NSW - the Hon. Barry O’Farrell, MP: Withdraw the NSW Government’s Planning Bills! 

Most importantly, spread the word by asking your neighbours, family, friends and community networks to sign our petition as well.

It’s not too late to make our voice heard. Together, we are stronger.

Thank you for taking action!

Sent on behalf of the Better Planning Network

		http://betterplanningnetwork.good.do/
		betterplanningnetwork@gmail.com
		http://www.facebook.com/BetterPlanningNetwork/
		http://twitter.com/bettplannetwork

(The Better Planning Network is an independent, non politically-aligned affiliation of over 420 community groups across NSW, striving to achieve a fair and balanced planning system that delivers responsible and sustainable development)

Clarence Valley Council Votes For Halt To CSG Mining Activity

On Tuesday 19th March Clarence Valley Council voted on the coal seam gas (CSG) motion which had been introduced at the previous week's Environment, Economic and Community Committee.

The motion had called on Council to write to MPs and relevant state and federal ministers calling for a halt to "coal seam gas mining activity and all other forms of unconventional gas mining" until the impacts of this mining were properly assessed in studies currently being undertaken by various expert committees.  If that assessment indicated that CSG mining was safe, the community could be assured that there would be no detrimental health or environmental impacts and the mining activity could then proceed.

Cr Kingsley moved the motion with several brief amendments. He said that the motion was not about the pros and cons of CSG but was rather in response to the concerns of the local community, concerns which have been acknowledged by both State and Federal governments.  He added that as the risks appeared to be there, governments should go one step further than their inquiries and halt mining activities until the risks have been dealt with.

Other councillors who spoke to support the motion were Crs Hughes, Howe, McKenna and Williamson. 

Those who spoke against were Crs Toms and Baker. 

One of Cr Baker arguments was to dispute the need for a halt because the experts who were undertaking the studies had not seen fit to recommend a halt. 

Cr Baker is naïve in imagining that experts engaged by the government would take it upon themselves to call for a halt to mining while the studies were done. Obviously a precautionary approach would indicate that was desirable – but the governments would have to make that decision.  And there is no doubt that both the State and Federal Governments, both wholehearted supporters of CSG mining, would not make that call.

Cr Toms' main argument was that there was no point of writing the letters on this matter to government ministers, because nothing would happen as a result.  She also said that, while she understood people's concerns, the matter was outside Council's area of responsibility and that Council needed to wait to see what the experts said.  She added that the issue was about our energy security.

While it appears that Cr Toms has more understanding of the issue than Cr Baker, at least two of the reasons quoted above can be disputed. 

Though it is extremely unlikely that letters to Ministers will persuade them to halt mining until the studies are completed and assessed, these letters are yet another indication – and a strong one – that a local community is very concerned about the likely impacts of CSG mining.  They will be in addition to the increasing numbers of letters, phone calls, emails, marches, protests and deputations from individuals and organisations that ensure that the message gets through to decision-makers in their "ivory towers" in Sydney and Canberra.

Cr Toms has obviously accepted the pro-CSG lobby's claim that CSG mining in NSW is essential for our energy security because NSW is running out of gas.  It's interesting that while they talk of local energy security, the companies mining CSG are more interested in exporting it than in providing for the domestic market. In relation to the claimed shortage, it has been established that there are plentiful supplies of gas in other areas – for example the Bass Strait.  So the energy security claim is a furphy.

The vote for the motion was six in favour (Kingsley, Howe, Hughes, McKenna, Simmons, Williamson) and three against (Baker, Challacombe, Toms).

Cr Challacombe did not speak in the debate and when the vote was taken indicated that he wished to abstain. The Mayor informed him that an abstention was recorded as a vote against.  Cr Challacombe reportedly informed the media later that his background in environmental science meant he thought the council was ill-qualified to assess the industry's impact. (The Daily Examiner, 20 March 2013, p. 4).  He has obviously missed the point that it was government experts, not the Council, who were going to assess the industry impacts.

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

21 March 2013

GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration

How pro-development state and local government is whittling away at environmental protection on the NSW Mid & Far North Coast

 

The NSW Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority’s Regional State of the Environment 2012 report speaks volumes about the attitude of Richmond Valley, Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey and Nambucca councils in relation to land outside of the national parks portfolio. All show reduced total areas for land afforded environmental protection under local planning instruments.

 

Across the entire NSW North Coast there has only been 4,618 hectares of additional land afforded environmental protection under the most recent local environmental plans.

Despite the existence of a well-established park and reserve system, effective habitat on the North Coast is now only classified as good through to very poor.

 

 

Has a misinformation campaign begun ahead of public exhibition of proposed linemarking intended to replace a 'stolen' section of the Regional Cycleway on Yamba Road?

On walking out of the 13 November 2012 Clarence Valley Council Committee Meetings one local resident was of the opinion that the attitude of the dominant clique to requests to replace a section of the Yamba Road Cycleway (which was removed without notice or community consultation) would likely see letters begin to appear in the local media presenting a distorted history of these requests.

It may be a coincidence, but this strangely ill-informed letter to the editor was published in The Daily Examiner on the morning of the 20 November council ordinary monthly meeting:

Leave road alone
CAN someone please explain to me why Clarence Valley Council is considering removing a perfectly good access and median strip in Yamba Rd? My elderly aunt and uncle feel very safe using the new access point on Yamba Rd but now a cyclist (who can ride on the road anyway) wants three cycle paths in the location - one on each side of the road and one on the road - and wants the council to spend more money undoing the great job they just did.
Residents along Yamba Rd near Freeburn St be aware, if this goes through, you are just about the lose your bus stop, street parking and the safe pedestrian access point along Yamba Rd all because the cyclist refuses to use the road, which they are able to do under the laws of the road.
On behalf of my elderly aunt and uncle and the safety of the locals, please just leave it alone.

John Wilcox

Bent Street

 

A direct response to Mr. Wilcox of Grafton (who is a big fan of the mayor*) was not published, but this letter to the editor set out below did make it onto the pages of The Daily Examiner on 23 November 2012:

 

Call for answers on lost cycleway
Nobody suggests the much-needed and absolutely necessary pedestrian refuge crossing recently installed on Yamba Rd at the Freeburn St intersection be removed.
But why has Yamba lost 150m of its Yamba Rd cycleway during construction when there was an abundance of land space available to widen the road and allow the cycleway to continue?
The Yamba Rd cycleway forms part of the regional cycleway that has safely served the community for decades.
The unnecessary loss of the section of cycleway has dangerously exposed cyclists of all ages and ability to the fast-moving heavy Yamba Rd traffic.
The erection of signs diverting all cyclists onto the Yamba Coastal Walkway - now called the "shared use pathway" - has placed the safety of pedestrians at risk.
The coastal walkway was partly funded by the NSW Government ($418,500) and was not designed for prolific cycle usage.
What's more, council is fully aware the pathway does not comply with its own safety standards, thereby deliberately breaching its "duty of care" responsibilities, which are to provide safe public facilities.
The destruction of the Yamba Rd cycleway occurred over six months ago, but still our mayor, Cr Williamson, avoids an explanation.
In fact, the subsequent erection of signage diverting all cyclists onto what is now called a "shared use pathway", knowing the pathway does not comply with council's own safety standards, suggests an attempt to cover up council's mismanagement and waste of public funds.
It's about time Mayor Williamson displayed some courage and provided a public explanation for council's waste of funds.

Ray Hunt

Yamba

 

* With all the numbers in, not only in the Clarence Valley, but on the North Coast, it is worth pointing out that Richie Williamson is the most popular councillor on the North Coast.

Not another candidate (or group even) got near the 6975 primary votes that Mr Williamson received.
Mr Williamson has always served our community with our best interest at heart and the community thanked him for this dedication on Saturday.
Congratulations Richie! [John Wilcox 10 September 2012]

Glenugie woman chains herself to work truck at CSG exploration drilling site in Clarence Valley

Deb Whitley of Glenugie 4 December 2012

CSG Free Northern Rivers Media Release 4th December 2012:

Brave Glenugie woman puts body on the line at Metgasco coal seam gas site

On the eve of Planning Minister Brad Hazzard’s visit to the Northern Rivers region, a brave and committed local woman has attached herself to a work truck at Metgasco’s coal seam gas site near Grafton. More than one hundred residents are on site with more flocking to the site all the time.

Deb Whitley of Glenugie says she has been forced to take this action because her land and home are under threat from coal seam gas mining.

“My home has always been the one constant in my life. It is my safety, my sanctuary - this industry threatens all of this,” said Deb.

The Grafton community, like the rest of the Northern Rivers region, is overwhelmingly opposed to coal seam gas and the threat it poses to community health, the environment and existing jobs.

“With my land I have choices to create an income and sustainable life for my future and now this is uncertain for me,” Deb said.

“The coal seam gas industry threatens our health and without good health we have nothing. I’ve always considered myself lucky but now I don’t know.”

“Minister Hazzard says he is coming to our region to answer our questions, well I have a question for him: Why is his government forcing rural communities like ours to take actions such as this to defend our communities from an unsustainable and unsafe industry?” said Lynette Eggins, of Clarence Valley Alliance Against CSG.

“The Minister needs to realise that this issue is not going to go away - our communities are strong and growing stronger, we will stand up to this government and their industry buddies for as long as it takes to stop their destructive plans for our region.”

 

UPDATE:

Deb's chains being cut

The Daily Examiner



The approaching storm about to engulf the NSW North Coast

 

When NSW Labor was swept from power 18 months ago, no issue symbolised the community’s frustration more than a notorious law known as Part 3A.

Part 3A gave the state government the power to remove decision-making on "significant" proposals from local councils and hand it to the minister, who could either make a decision or appoint an expert panels. Around NSW, community groups found that controversial developments were removed from their local councils……

Eventually, the NSW Minister for Planning Brad Hazzard appointed Tim Moore — an ex-minister for planning in a former Liberal government and former judge of the Land and Environment Court — and lawyer Ron Dyer to conduct a review.

Their review was expected to be the basis for a green paper, which was subsequently published in June. After a further consultation period, a white paper and draft legislation will be released later this year. When passed, this bill is expected to become the new planning legal framework, replacing the 1979 act, which was passed after the Green Ban period but has been constantly amended since.

The Moore/Dyer review found the key objective of planning reform should be to "provide an ecologically, economically and socially sustainable framework". But when the green paper appeared, this and many other recommendations had disappeared. Now the first objective was "economic development and competitiveness". The underlying philosophy was now pro-growth and pro-developer.

Community groups which had welcomed the solid consultation process of the review now found that the paper proposed less rights for community consultation than now exist. Under the new regime, communites would be engaged in forming broad regional plans, but once guidelines were in place they would not be consulted on developments in their local neighbourhoods.

Developers, on the other hand, could apply for rezonings, even if these did not fit with regional guidelines. If council decisions went against developers they could appeal to non-elected Regional Planning Boards that may include developer representatives. There would also be more opportunity in the new system for checking off proposals against a list of criteria, using certificates supplied by developer consultants.  [New Matilda 19 October 2012]

 

Rapacious land developers and real estate agents are about to be given carte blanche by the O’Farrell Government and, it is hard to see the situation ending well for coastal communities in particular when this pivitol recommendation set out below is apparently being rejected.

 

The Hon Tim Moore and The Hon Ron Dyer (May 2012) Recommendations of the Independent Review of the NSW Planning System:

 

A new legislative framework

The reforms need to be set out in a new legislative framework – one founded on three new

Acts of Parliament:

• a Sustainable Planning Act – to establish the framework for a reformed

planning system

• a Planning Commission Act – to establish the composition, powers and functions of

an independent Planning Commission

• a Spatial Information Act – to facilitate a ‘whole of government’ approach to

the application of information technology to spatial data (and not confined to

planning information).

The principal new legislation – the Sustainable Planning Act – will contain the major

elements of the reformed framework. It will be in a plain English, narrative form. Technical

aspects will be in schedules to the Act or in regulations (separate ones for different topics).

Although foreshadowed in this Volume, the discussion of and detailed recommendations for the proposed Planning Commission Act and proposed Spatial Information Act will be set out in Volume 2.

The Sustainable Planning Act will have a single overarching object:

The object of this Act is to provide an ecologically, economically and socially sustainable

framework for land use planning and for development proposal assessment and

determination together with the necessary ancillary legislative provisions to support

this framework.

The Act is structured to set out the elements necessary for this broad object and to

provide more detailed objects relevant to the planning processes.

• Independent Review Paper - Volume 1 - Major Issues (2.8mb)
• Independent Review Paper - Volume 2 - Other Issues (1.47mb)

The current O’Farrell-Stoner-Hazzard plan encapsulated:

individuals and markets are best placed to deliver diverse choices, vibrant communities and strong and sustainable economies

• A New Planning System for NSW - Green Paper (4.4mb)  

It should be noted that at least one of the NSW National Party MPs representing the North Coast, Chris Gualptis, is a former land developer.