Planning Reforms
Department of Planning
GPO Box 30
Sydney NSW 2001
14 February 2008
Dear Sir/Madam
Submission on Improving the NSW Planning System
Further to our email of 8 February regarding the abovementioned document, we would like to make the following comments. 
1 Timing and staging of reforms
•	The Nambucca Valley Conservation Association (NVCA) believes the planning reforms are moving too quickly to allow for genuine and thorough community consultation. In particular exhibiting this document over the Christmas holidays, when many (including Mums and Dads) are having a well earned break from work is unfair and unacceptable. We believe the exhibition period should be extended until at least May 2008 and greater detail provided on key aspects. Our Association experienced difficulties gathering comments from members and finding the time to prepare this submission over the Christmas holiday period, hence the late lodgement.
•	The discussion Paper lacks the required detail to be able to fully understand the implications of the proposed changes. How will the model codes and targets be set for complying development to achieve the 40 – 50% level hoped for? How will the Regional Planning Panels and the Planning Assessment Commission be established and with what mix of representation/expertise? How will the accountability for private certification be improved specifically?
2 Snapshot of NSW planning system
· The snap shot refers to 80% of DAs lodged in 2005-06 being from families and small business, but fails to define small business. Is a developer who lodges a DA for say one or two dwellings a year considered a small business? This figure should have been broken down to families (single dwelling) and developer, to offer a truer picture.
· No consideration is given to the fact that many DAs lodged with local governments are incomplete or incorrect, resulting in a delay to determination and pushing up the determination time. This situation is partly due to lack of or inconsistent information available to those wishing to lodge a DA, but is also often due to sloppy applications. Standardising LEPs across the state will go some way to addressing this problem, however it is unacceptable that councils with good turn around times (mostly non metro councils) should be penalised with reduced assessment and determination powers because of other (mostly metropolitan) councils with poorer performance. Rather the underperforming councils should be required to review their processes and policies to ensure minimum DA turn around time. 
· Another contributing factor affecting turn around times for DAs which does not appear to have been considered, is that of the enormous planning reforms workload currently placed upon existing local government planning staff, such as the new LEPs, DCPs and strategic plans. These demanding tasks have had a particular impact upon regional councils which due to financial constraints often find it difficult to provide employment packages lucrative and attractive enough to entice experience planning staff away from cities. The burden of state and federal government cost shifting onto local government without matching resources has compounded this situation. Nambucca Shire Council (NSC) has been understaffed in its planning department a number of times recently due to the inability to recruit suitably qualified staff, with the resultant delays to planning and DA determination activities. Despite this, NSC’s turnaround times for Jan – Nov 2007 have been 46.81, 59.06, 31.88, 39.19, 54.80, 48.65, 52.72, 66.55, 61.65, 57.74 and 72.25 days respectively, an acceptable outcome.
3 Gateway approach
· We see this as a means of fast tracking rezonings but with no certainty as to the type or level of community consultation.
· The paper’s proposal that community consultation would be established as part of the ‘gateway process leaves us wondering about the likelihood of public exclusion from the process on controversial rezoning proposals, in particular those involving environmentally sensitive lands. We have no alternative but to oppose the ‘gateway approach’ until such time as we can be clear that there has been no eroding of public opportunity to view and comment on any rezoning proposal at an early stage. Ideally community participation in these far reaching decisions should be enhanced as should concurrence requirements.
4 Public consultation and participation
· NVCA believes that public participation is a fundamental right of the people and that it must remain as a key foundation of the planning system.
· No clear information exists within the Discussion Paper as to how public participation will occur for the various types of DA. No detail is provided on the proposed community consultation guidelines. We have no choice but to remain sceptical.
5 Planning Panels
· This proposal raises many questions. NVCA is particularly opposed to the removal or overriding of local government’s powers with regard to DA assessment. As the level of government closest to the community, local government is in the best position to understand the basis for local strategic plans and to assess DAs in this context. This approach allows for the diversity of different communities and localities. It helps to maintain local character.
· It is difficult to comment other than to highlight opposition due to the complete lack of detail in the discussion paper as to how these planning panels will be formed, who will sit on them and their terms of reference. This information should have been provided. Any planning panel must include environmental representatives with an appropriate level of expertise.
6 Concurrence Requirements
· Although often the cause of delays to DA determinations, having various agencies consider relevant aspects of DAs is critical and must not be changed. This approach provides the depth of assessment and consideration expected by the community to ensure environmental, social and economic matters are fully considered.
· The proposed reduction in concurrence requirements is not acceptable. The planning system should retain the invaluable input and expertise provided for integrated development assessments in particular in regards to native vegetation, threatened species, critical habitat and water resources.
· How will the level of concurrence required be established? 
· Agency participation should be improved with increased resources for the process rather than reduced or removed. This would reduce the backlogging which often results in DA’s taking longer than the minimum 40 days required of local government to determine a DA.
7 Exempt and Complying Development
· Basing the target for exempt and complying development on a simple proportion ie 50% with policies developed to achieve that target, is putting the cart before the horse. Policies for exempt and complying development should be based upon clear and justifiable parameters which are acceptable to the wider community not just developers. 
· We support the mandatory listing of solar panels as complying development.
•	If Complying Development Certificates are used, local government and/or affected parties should be allowed a minimum of 15 working days to challenge instead of the insufficient 7 days proposed. 
8 Private Certification
· The NVCA does not support private certification under the current system and lack confidence that the proposed changes will satisfactorily address our concerns.
· This is a system clearly vulnerable to abuse through the very nature of the work. A private certifier is unlikely to want to make life difficult for a developer who is a current and future source of income. Put simply a private certifier is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds him/her.
· The proposal to limit the number of jobs to three which a certifier can undertake for any one developer is evidence of the government’s lack of trust in the process. However we are not at all convinced that this measure will negate the opportunity for corruption.
•	One option for improvement could be to establish a register of private certifiers with DoP who would then select the appropriate certifier according to expertise and departmental and peer review of previous work. The certifier would not be paid directly by the developer but from a trust fund into which the developer had lodged the appropriate fee to pay the certifier and processing charges. 
· Local Governments should be adequately resourced to assess and determine developments in its own planning area.
•	Local Government should be able to supervise, challenge and overrule certifiers, especially if certifiers. This work should be funded, not by council, but through a bond lodged by the applicant and the certifier so that they jointly have a desire to avoid misrepresentation in the DA. 
9 ePlanning
· NSC’s recent community survey showed that of the 400 people survey only 12% had visited council’s website. This result is perhaps not surprising given the depressed socio economic status of the Nambucca and the high proportion of over 60 year old (38.4%) who often do not use the internet.
· ePlanning certainly has its merits, but how will those not using internet be catered for. People need a choice in how information is disseminated. 
10 General Comments 
· The NVCA understand the need to improve the planning system in NSW however we do not accept the rhetoric that this is about streamlining the process for ‘Mums and Dads’. The proposed changes will result in less input into DA assessment and approval by local government, in particular elected representatives and reduced opportunity for community consultation.
•	NVCA recognises that there needs to be a higher level of accountability within the local government system with regard to planning and development application determinations; however that is not a reason to remove powers and place them further away from public scrutiny via panels, private certifiers and increased exempt and complying developments.
•	The NSC recently conducted a community survey where respondents were asked their attitude to development. 39% considered themselves anti development, 35% were neither for nor against and only 25% were pro development. One wonders what the results of the same survey would be if extrapolated across the state in particular the coastal regional areas. We feel confident that the results would be similar. How do these proposed planning reforms cater for the concerns of the majority of residents? The reforms should be advocating a tightening of development controls rather than the contrary which is proposed in the planning reforms. 
11 Conclusion
It is difficult not to conclude that the proposed changes are more about greasing the wheels of development in NSW with the emphasis on economic growth and less about social and environmental consideration and outcomes. 
Together with other new state plans and policies, such as the draft Regional Strategic Plan which drastically over allocates land for development beyond projected needs and BioBanking which allows development in critical habitat, these proposed planning reforms open the door for excessive development, even where it may not be needed or appropriate.
The NVCA believes the development industry lobby groups have been extremely successful in their bid to have environmental protection weakened in NSW. They have had the sympathetic ear of the NSW Government. We are now witnessing a piecemeal dismantling of environmental protection instruments. This is an extremely disappointing outcome given that previous state planning instruments for environmental protection were already woefully inadequate and failed to even slow the steady decline of biodiversity in this state. 
In view of global climate change and increasing loss of biodiversity, our members are not confident that the current planning reforms will result in truly sustainable planning or land management - they will not protect environmental values and biodiversity for future generations.
We trust you will accept our feedback on this important issue.
Yours sincerely
Georgette Allen
Secretary