Councils across New South Wales have fired a warning to the state government that its proposed changes to planning laws are "not just or fair" and a "rubber stamp for developers".
While councils were in caretaker mode on December 15, 2021 the state government outlined its ambition to "reframe" planning laws in a bid to "unlock housing supply".
Then-planning Minister, Rob Stokes announced the plan at a Property Council of Australia event.
Following the announcement, the government released a discussion paper detailing the changes, which included refunding developer application fees if councils failed to meet expected approval time frames.
The changes would also allow developers to take the lead on community consultations and initiate court appeals if proposed plans were rejected, even if the project failed to meet objectives defined in a council's community strategic plan.
Changes to benefit developers
Multiple councils have expressed broad opposition to the changes.
Wollondilly Shire Council, on the south-western fringe of Sydney, has been targeted by the government as part of the Greater Macarthur growth area. A rezoning of the area is underway that will allow up to 40,000 homes.
Mayor Matthew Gould said the reframe was a direct threat to the Council's efforts to preserve rural lifestyle and the village character of the shire.
"We have major concerns with the proposed changes, which will benefit developers at the expense of the community and sound strategic planning principles," Mr Gould said.
He said allowing developers to lead community engagement was a mistake.
Mr Gould also said setting time frames was unworkable.
"If the time frames are not met, we have to essentially pay an amount of money to the developers to compensate, and likewise if we reject it," he said.
"So, if we have a proposal that is just completely inappropriate for the shire, that makes absolutely no sense — we have to refund the money to the developer out of our ratepayer funds — which are desperately needed for roads and infrastructure.
"To compensate developers for putting in an absolutely terrible planning proposal in the first place.
Developer-led approach
Further south, Wollongong City Council also criticised the proposed changes in its submission to the discussion paper.
"Looks to be developer-led system and there is little in the proposed new system to increase a plan-led approach."
The council also warned the changes would be attractive to "land speculators".
"The ability for proponents to appeal against a negative Council decision at the end of the process will be a further incentive for speculative developers to 'roll the dice' with a rezoning proposal."
It suggested the changes would "create unnecessary anxiety in the community".
It argued that "Council is of the view that the proposed new system puts consistency, integrity, transparency and community trust at risk".
Kiama Municipal Council warned refunding rezoning applications would create problems for rate payers.
"Although we support applicants' right to appeal, Kiama, alongside many other local councils, has concerns that any proposed appeals pathway would increase costs to the ratepayers and undermine strategic planning."
In its submission, Shellharbour Council said it did not support the approach and that it presented an "inherent contradiction".
"It creates inefficiencies by processing an application and keeping it in the system even though it has no strategic merit or alignment."
"It potentially creates assumptions in the community that what is exhibited must have some degree of support by the council, otherwise they would never have put in on exhibition."
The council also stated that there was "no genuine community engagement … it is merely notification".
Shoalhaven Council raised strong concerns about the proposal and argued introducing a fee refund would be an "unnecessary punitive approach".
NSW Local Government Association president Darriea Turley said the organisation understood and supported sensible planning reform but held concerns about the proposals.
"We'll be making recommendations, particularly around the appeals pathway, around fee refund – this would punish councils and is not in good faith," she said
"I know some councils are calling it pro-developer and the government will need to listen."
Mr Turley said that while the change was purported to help unlock housing supply, the result could cause more planning problems for communities.
"I fear we'd get a mass of housing stock, big houses, small blocks, no planning for footpaths, no green space for our kids, no dog parks for our dogs, no easy access to shops, no schools that are nearby; all the things that our town planners do really well."
She said the changes would be additionally problematic for regional and rural areas where councils struggle with workforce issues.
A spokesperson from the Department of Planning and Environment said the process was still being reviewed.
"We are currently considering the feedback raised by industry, councils and community, before confirming a preferred policy framework and implementation time frame."
