|
|
|
The
National Trust of NSW Response on behalf of The Greens 15 March 2003 |
|
URBAN
CONSOLIDATION
In addition urban consolidation has often been used as a pretext for destroying heritage structures, places and neighbourhoods and the curtilage of heritage structures. The Greens believe that increased densities can be achieved without sacrificing urban amenity and heritage and without riding rough shod over the wishes of local communities. However, we do not believe that this is possible without major reforms to the planning system. We believe that these reforms would involve changes to the Land and Environment Court, objector appeal rights on matters of merit, a ban on donations to political parties by developers, changes to the way in which consultants are allowed to operate and repeal of SEPP 1 and reforms to SEPP 5. SEPP 5 While The Greens support the objectives of SEPP 5, we are increasingly aware of cases where it has been used as a pretext for developers to escape the constraints of the local planning instruments. Many of these developers had no intention of building homes for the aged or the disabled. Meanwhile, neighbourhoods are torn apart and heritage buildings lost. As an interim measure, The Greens have proposed that developers who seek to use the provisions of SEPP 5 would be required to lodge a substantial bond which would be forfeited after 5 years if the development was not being used for its originally stated purpose. This would provide sufficient disincentive to developers seeking to rort the process. It would not however undo the damage inflicted on the urban and natural environment as a result of the additional development intensity. The Greens do not believe that development intensity bonuses such as are used in SEPP 5 are an appropriate instrument to achieving beneficial social outcomes. While many of the social objectives achieved are desirable, the cost of achieving them is often unacceptable. Intensity bonuses such as increased height or floor space beyond the limit prescribed in the planning instruments mean that communities and heritage values inevitably suffer. Such planning philosophies pit social objectives against environmental objectives and it is only the developers who win in such competitions. The Greens propose instead that social objectives should become part of the obligations of developers. Rather than sacrificing planning outcomes, developers should be obliged to contribute part of their massive profits to the development of social housing. INDEPENDENCE IN DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT The Greens believe that the current system of expert submissions and advice to the planning process is biased in favour of developers who select and pay the consultants. Inevitably the advice obtained will be biased by the need to maintain a reputation for providing advice that supports the approval of the development. Our experience in opposing over-developments and inappropriate developments is that all expert opinion given on behalf of a developer supports the application, when the proposal is clearly inappropriate. It is obvious that the planning process is being subverted by false, misleading and biased information. The Greens support reform to the process of selection of expert witnesses and technical consultants to remove conflicts of interest and perverse incentives. While we believe that the developer should pay for expert witnesses, we believe that they be chosen on rotation from a pool of certified expert witnesses. Where expert advice, such as a Statement of Environmental Effects or a traffic study, is tendered by a developer, Council and the objectors should be able to obtain their own expert advice to conduct an independent review, at the expense of the developer. FUNDING FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF GOVERNMENT HERITAGE The Greens recognise the need to preserve heritage buildings and sites, not only for their aesthetic and architectural importance, but also because of their social and cultural associations. While appreciating the necessity for sympathetic accretions to the built form that respect the fabric, scale and amenity of heritage items, The Greens unreservedly oppose the travesty of facadism. Publicly owned buildings constitute a large and important component of the heritage estate of NSW. It is thus essential that their maintenance be properly funded and be seen as an integral component of the work of public entities. The Greens are committed to the protection of this important legacy for the next generation. PROTECTION OF PUBLIC LANDS The Greens are committed to protecting public lands as these form an essential network of open and publicly accessible spaces that are central to maintaining liveable urban forms. Greens councillors and members of parliament have consistently opposed the privatisation or commercialisation of public lands, arguing that the community’s interest lies in maintaining full public ownership and control. ENDANGERED SITES The Greens have been actively involved in the campaigns to save North Head Quarantine Station, Tempe House, the ADI site and the Regent Theatre in Wollongong. We are committed to saving the heritage and amenity of each of these sites. For further
information:
|