The 3A DA needs greater democratic legitimacy
Urban planning in New South Wales is in strife. Glossy planning documents abound and, at least in theory, the system is consultative and democratic. But there’s a flaw.
Under section 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Act 2005, the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, can assume authority for Development Approval (DA) for any development deemed “state significant.”
State significance, according to the legislation, relates to any development related to any form of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, tourism, healthcare, transport, electricity, water or waste disposal. All that leaves is offices and residential buildings, yet they can be “state significant” to if their value exceeds $50 million or they’re deemed crucial for achieving state planning objectives.
The intention, of course, was to wrest development authority from those incompetent or corrupt local councils, and to get round narrow-minded NIMYBism when it came to situating waste sites, prisons, power stations and the like in the optimal places.
Technically, the criteria and thresholds of the legislation keep the Minister in check, and it’s mandatory to exhibit plans, seek local feedback and consult with councils. Yet in practice these have proven to be too vague, or the feedback is simply ignored, and “state significance” is often declared at the Planning Minister’s whim. Given the leeway he has under the legislation, it’s difficult to challenge decisions in the courts.
Recent, controversial, examples have included the Breweries site south of Sydney’s CBD, which is soon to become huge residential towers despite vociferous local opposition, and the hamlet of Catherine Hill Bay in the Hunter Valley, which will soon see its population increase nine-fold.
There’s something inherently undemocratic about a planning system that’s used to haphazardly wrest control of big residential or commercial office developments, and give them special treatment. Many have hardly been “state significant” by any stretch of the imagination. Vision is sorely lacking, with 3A devolving into little more than fast-tracking for big developers.
There are two ways this loophole can be fixed.
Firstly, it should be mandatory for decisions to be made by a panel consisting of the minister, his department, local councils, community and development representatives, weighted appropriately. These panels currently exist, but only in an advisory manner. The minister shouldn’t be allowed to override decisions.
Secondly, planning must be more democratic. Parliament - the people’s representatives-should have the final say on “state significance,” and exercise adequate scrutiny, consultation and transparency. Local councils regularly meet to consider and approve batches of development applications, so why can’t the state parliament act similarly? Big development applications, for example, could be put before parliament in batches each month for amendment, ratification or rejection.
Ideally, both systems would be implemented. 3A decisions need to be more accountable and fair. The democratic legitimacy of our planning system needs an overhaul, as does the vision underlying how our cities, towns and regions should grow and develop.