Submission on Green Paper

Hi All,

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