Coalition to give councils more power

Branding the Government's 2005 amendments the "Godzilla amendments", the Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, told the Herald councils, not the state government, should be approving development. "There are clearly state-significant developments and this State Government needs to be able to deal with those," he said. "But we think it has gone too far with Frank [Sartor, the Planning minister]. We would much rather have the principles worked out with local government to make sure there is decision-making at local government level as much as possible."

The former planning minister, Craig Knowles, introduced the "major infrastructure" amendments to the planning laws, giving the state the power to call in - that is, take over - infrastructure deemed state-significant or critical to the state's economic development. The provisions also provide a fast track, with most developments being processed within six months. The definition allowed the state to call in developments over $50 million, as well as developments previously dealt with under the coastal policy.

But since Mr Sartor became Planning Minister there has been a growing clamour from community groups about intervention by the Government.

High-profile developments such as the CUB site in Ultimo and the Royal Rehab hospital in Putney have put planning laws onto the front page.

A rally to protest against the state's planning laws is to be held in the city tomorrow.

Mr Debnam's planning spokesman, Chris Hartcher, said under a Debnam government the number of developments being taken out of council hands would slow from "a flood to a trickle".

He said Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act would be used only for state government projects and for genuinely critical infrastructure.

It would not be used for private sector proposals unless strict criteria were met. These were likely to include when a council was unable to handle the complexity of the development, when there had been long delays, or when the development approval was urgent.

Mr Sartor said he called in only about 350 development applications a year, out of 125,000 submitted to councils in NSW.

"Over 95 per cent of what we have done is, beyond question, sensible," he said. "Many [development applications] called in are for coal and extractive industry, which councils say they don't want to deal with because they are so complicated. One-quarter are coastal.

"Sites like CUB and Royal Rehab had been around for three to four years - that's why I called them in."

The Local Government and Shires Associations, which opposed the major projects legislation, said it welcomed any proposals to return powers to local government.

"But we would need to look closely at the details," said the association's vice-president, Leo Kelly. "It's our intention to publish a response as a report card on Government and Opposition policies before the election."

Mr Debnam also said he would not continue the Government's push for standard definitions in Local Environment Plans, at least for regional areas. "It's very important to protect the character of communities," he said.

Mr Sartor said there had been "universal support" from industry and councils for templates for LEPS, even if some councils had quibbled over the definitions.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/coalition-to-give-councils-more-power/2007/02/09/1170524303946.html