I dislike doing rushed submissions and its not as well researched as I might have liked it to be, but I couldnt let the deadline go without making a few comments on the Green paper on planning. Hopefully there are a lot more submissions which tackle the detail and that mine is an added 'voice' to the resounding sound of community seeking greater input rather than being blocked out.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dear Co- Chairs,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Planning Review:
Green Paper and for providing “A review of International Best Practice in
Planning Law”. I encourage you to adopt all of the measures that are provided
in the ‘Summary of Best Practices, as I believe they will go a long way in
making any planning law reform more meaningful.
As a Councillor on Shoalhaven City Council, I am concerned
that the State will continue to cost shift back to Council and I encourage the
Chair to make a recommendation that the legislation embody a financial
contribution from the State for plan making.
Developer contributions are also an important part of
infrastructure delivery in regional Councils and this scheme needs to be
retained and if not a legislated commitment to perhaps a tax dividend needs to
be incorporated to give local Councils more confidence in financial
contributions.
Ecologically sustainable development principles should remain
a key aspect of any new planning instrument and that a clear definition of ESD
is provided and is enforceable by local planning authorities.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, for Coastal Councils. These
issues come with a huge community cost implication – put simply local Councils
need firm assistance with this type of planning. The recent abandonment of the
draft sea level rise policy is a poor policy decision and this needs to be
turned around in any new plan.
The review is lacking in detail on how Community
Consultation will be undertaken, in advancing the issue to the next level more detail
needs to be incorporated and then legislated- it’s not acceptable that loose
statements open to interpretation in regards to consultation become part of the
legislation. Even though it seems that upfront consultation will take the
conflict out of land use planning, this could only be possible in a planning
world that created documents that encapsulate the communities desire AND
provided a third party appeal mechanism should an individual development have a
negative social and environmental impact. Merit based assessment does not
fulfil this objective. The time between initial consultation and actual project
delivery will create a disconnect between plan making and building, this has
the potential to drive conflict.
I do hope that the environment will be given the highest
priority for protection, good quality natural and built environments are what
create Australia’s unique character and we cannot jeopardises that for the sake
of developer driven plan making.
Amanda Findley
