Government lies
Eminent QC Tim Robertson (a leading Sydney barrister specialising in planning and environment law) was quoted on Stateline ABC TV New South Wales “The Land Bribe ” Broadcast: 11/09/2009 (Reporter: Nick Grimm):…the Government’s been telling lies about what its intentions are in relation to planning for years. They claimed that Part 3A would increase public participation, whereas it’s only reduced it. To some extent, it’s vitiated community participation altogether by giving the minister power to ignore plans and controls that have been developed in cooperation with the community. So it has, I think quite deliberately – and the Government’s known what they’re doing – quite deliberately taken these steps to avoid community scrutiny of controversial development.
…bad decisions being made, and they’re being made because the kind of controls over the decision-making process have been eviscerated by Part 3A of the Planning Act.
NICK GRIMM: Tim Robertson, you also act for property developers. Now, given what you’re saying about the planning processes in this state, what sort of advice do you give your clients when they come to you with a project that they’re having difficulty getting off the ground?
TIM ROBERTSON: Oh, I tell them to go to Part 3A, go to the minister. You never advise your clients to go to counsel if they can avoid it. So if they fall within the description of a major project or if they have some – if there’s some flexibility in the description, they should go off to the minister or the minister’s department and persuade them to treat it as a major project.
NICK GRIMM: OK, so exactly why do you tell property developers to go to the minister?
TIM ROBERTSON: First of all, there’s far less scrutiny; secondly, the public don’t have a look in; thirdly, there’s a possibility of getting an approval faster, although recently it’s been very difficult to get quick approvals from the department. And finally, if there is anything dodgy about the development, then it’s not likely to be looked at with the same degree of scrutiny as if they went the local government route. And I think possibly the most important thing is that if the minister does appoint a panel or has a concept plan requirement, then that cuts out the court. So if objectors have rights of appeal because it’s what’s called designated development, they can’t exercise those rights of appeal. So it makes it – it tidies it up for property developers. It reduces the risk of development and makes the – makes development easier because they don’t have to comply with planning controls. Planning controls are just out the window, unless there’s an actual prohibition, and even then the minister can get over the actual prohibition by rezoning the land, at the same time as granting a project approval under Part 3A, and has done so and did so in several controversial cases, including the Rosecorp development at Catherine Hill Bay.
NICK GRIMM: That’s a pretty damning indictment of the way planning is conducted in this state, isn’t it?
TIM ROBERTSON: It’s a reflection of the actuality, that is, that power has been concentrated in the minister’s hands and for the purpose of facilitating development approvals, certainly not for purpose of enhancing environment scrutiny of development and certainly not for encouraging community participation in development or implementing well-worked-out planning controls that local government apply to small people, small developers, who still have to go the local government route.