Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Bill 2011

16-June-2011

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN: Minister Craig Knowles introduced the coastal policy, I think it was clause 71, giving the Minister the authority to determine all major projects within one kilometre of a tidal waterway along the entire New South Wales coast. One of the first approvals was for a 14-metre high building in an eight-metre high zone at Shoal Bay—a limit respected by all colours of Port Stephens councillors since Adam wore shorts. It was six metres over the height limit and the Minister's excuse was that he cut the applicant back by one storey. As mayor I visited all coastal councils from Port Stephens to Tweed and every council was frustrated by Sydney-based planners determining the character of their towns and ignoring the local residents. I know the member for Lake Macquarie, who is also the mayor of Lake Macquarie, had similar problems with the disastrous coastal policy of State environmental planning policy 71.

The Labor Government then introduced part 3A so all of us could share the pain. The income derived from the development application fees, which are the lifeblood of council planning departments, was channelled into that Labor Government. My experience of Labor Government has solidified my belief that professional assessment and decision-making with regard to development applications should occur at the local government level. As previous speakers have said, councillors and council staff live and breathe their communities. They are the best suited to determine the validity of most development applications. The repeal of part 3A is an important step in restoring public confidence in the planning system and in getting New South Wales moving again.

I will expand particularly on the features of the bill in relation to the proposed State significant development process that will replace part 3A of the Act for development proposals of genuine State significance, particularly in rural and regional New South Wales. The Coalition has always maintained that following the repeal of part 3A of the Act it will be necessary to put in place an open, transparent and fair assessment process to deal exclusively with genuinely State significant developments. The proposed process for State significant developments outlined in this bill provides such a framework and strikes an appropriate balance between returning decision-making powers to local communities while providing certainty and efficiency that investors can rely on when it comes to large-scale priority projects of State significance.

First, a State environmental planning policy will outline classes of State significant development and these classes will only pick up major development proposals with importance to the State. Residential, retail, commercial, coastal subdivisions and marina developments will no longer be specified classes of State significant development. We propose to increase the financial thresholds for other remaining classes of development. These changes will halve the number of applications dealt with by the State and return fewer significant applications to councils for assessment. However, I am pleased to hear the new State and regional environmental planning policy will provide that major employment-generating and income-producing proposals will still be assessed by the State.

It is quite appropriate for there to be a State-based assessment of major employment-generating industrial development, coalmining and other large-scale mining, resource and primary industry projects such as petroleum and extractive industries, timber milling, intensive livestock industries, aquaculture, agricultural and food processing as well as metal and chemical processing and major industrial manufacturing, storage, and distribution facilities. State significant development will also pick up major social infrastructure projects valued at more than $30 million including large-scale hospitals and medical facilities, correctional centres, schools, TAFEs and universities, major sporting facilities and cultural facilities such as performing arts centres, museums and exhibition and convention centres.

State significant development will also include certain infrastructure projects over $30 million mainly undertaken by private proponents such as electricity generation, port and wharf facilities, water supply works, sewage and wastewater treatment plants, private road and bridge projects, industrial heavy rail lines, rail freight and intermodal terminals and related rail corridor developments. As well, it is important that the State continues to take a role for major development with significant environmental impacts such as electricity generation, sewage treatment, water supply works and resource recovery, and waste facilities such as landfills if they are located in environmentally sensitive areas for category one remediation works.

This is a great step forward for industry and communities as both can have confidence that the State will continue to take an important role in the assessment of major private proposals that deliver jobs throughout rural and regional New South Wales. Increased transparency and integrity are consistent themes throughout this bill and the associated measures. In his agreement in principle speech the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure said although the bill provides for him to be the consent authority for State significant development, that for State significant development proposals he will delegate this function to the Planning Assessment Commission for proposals by private developers or to senior departmental officers for minor, less controversial proposals to depoliticise approvals and to introduce far greater independence and integrity in the handling of such applications.

I understand it is anticipated that the majority of these projects—more than 80 per cent of State significant development—will therefore not be determined by the Minister. By moving these responsibilities to the independent commission or to senior departmental officers the Minister has moved to restore public confidence in the planning system. This is a big win for the planning system and will go a long way to putting the problems of part 3A behind us. I note however that the Minister may also call in projects under State significant development, but I am pleased to see that this power has been tightly constrained and will only be allowed after the Minister has obtained and made publicly available advice from the Planning Assessment Commission about the State or regional significance of the development.

In addition, I note from the bill that the Minister cannot approve a wholly prohibited development. I understand that if an application for prohibited development is proposed, a concurrent rezoning would be required to remove the prohibition and, to ensure that such proposals are dealt with at arm's length, only the Planning Assessment Commission will be able to make the proposed local environmental plan and determine the related development application. I note that the bill will strengthen the independence of the Planning Assessment Commission and expand its role and also includes establishing clear protocols and procedures to which the commission will operate.

Another feature of State significant development assessment will be heightened transparency and disclosure of decision-making including requiring the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to publish on its website State significant development applications, environmental assessment requirements, environmental impacts statements, public submissions and other related documents and reports relevant to the proposal as soon as they become available. State significant development applications will also require submission of an environmental impact statement that will provide a comprehensive assessment of the proposal. Relevant government agencies will be consulted early in the process about the assessment requirements for the environmental impact statements and their views will be sought on the proposal at inception rather than later down the track.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. It is difficult for Hansard to hear the member for Port Stephens.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN: This integrated and holistic assessment approach also means that separate approvals and concurrences will not apply to State significant development. This gives industry and investors greater certainty and will help get the State moving again. It also gives the community certainty at a much earlier stage about whether a project is feasible and that comprehensive mitigation measures will be put in place. As with local development, State significant development will be assessed under section 79C of the Act. Local development standards and controls can no longer be completely ignored or contradicted as they were under part 3A. Existing third party appeal rights will apply as will judicial reviews on points of law.

Importantly the bill will assist in slashing the number of development proposals dealt with by the State and depoliticising the determination of the remaining State significant proposals by handing them to the Planning Assessment Commission or the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for determination. These provisions strike an effective balance between the need to deliver security for investors, and jobs and housing for the people of New South Wales by assessing genuinely State significant proposals at a State level and the need to ensure that communities have a real say at a local level about projects that should be determined at a local level.