The Greater – or lesser – Sydney Commission

The Greater – or lesser – Sydney Commission

BY ANDREW WOODHOUSE

WARNING! Material in this article may cause offence to some readers.

The power struggle between state government and councils is formative: friction was born into the relationship. Council is the legal creation and child of the state government. Councils themselves are not even recognised in our Federal Constitution. Sydney Council, for example, has been sacked about four times: when the government thinks it’s become too big for its boots, is becoming too powerful, contradicts it, or openly defies it. It has been amalgamated too many times to dilute or shift its power base to bring it into line with the government’s planning policies, with its boundaries fiddled and nuanced for the same reasons.

Hotly-contested council amalgamations are still on the table this year but not for Sydney Council. In May 2016 former Premier, Mike Baird (remember him?) appointed unelected administrators to run nineteen new, larger councils in NSW. “People have us here to make decisions.” he insisted, adding that new councils would deliver better services for lower costs. Historically, this is fibbing: it’s never happened before so why should it happen now?

The administrators, by coincidence, are mainly former public servants, council managers and a couple of mayors and former Coalition MP’s. Surprise, surprise. They have the power of mayors and councillors but can’t change development plans. Needless to say, they fully support government initiatives like resuming properties for high-rise near rail transport hubs whilst delisting their heritage status, surely a heritage heresy. These high priests of planning seem to casually overlook the fact that not everyone both lives and works near a train station. So even if you live near one, it may not get you to work any faster. It may even become more frustrating. It will certainly add more cars to already overcrowded roads, now choking on their own fumes.

To further wrest control over pesky councils, State Government has now by-passed them altogether. It has appointed its mates to implement its own planning policies.

And who are these people? Lo and behold, they are Liberal Party hacks and former unelected, or do I mean unelectable, politicians. Think Lucinda Mary “Lucy” Turnbull AO, former Lord Mayor of Sydney from 2003 to 2004. She was appointed, not elected, Mayor, after Frank Sartor, “the most hated politician in NSW,” left to go to state parliament. She never contested the following election to avoid the shame after her own polls found her wildly unpopular.
Now she’s back in her Armani twin set and South Sea pearls, via the back door.

She chairs the Greater Sydney Commission. It has its own Act of Parliament, overruling council plans, and has issued a set of draft plans. What it promises is less important than how it intends to fulfil its promises.

It pretends it can create “a city with more jobs and more access to jobs within 30 minutes of where people live,” a “liveable city” with “many different places” and “greater housing choices,” “increased sustainability” and more “resilience”. Yawn. It’s more motherhood statements and meaningless, nebulous, weasel words.

Its goal is “to have well‐coordinated, integrated and effective planning for land use, transport and infrastructure,” read overdevelopment. Yet it has no power to implement any infrastructure to cope with increased urban consolidation. But it is still powerful. Its plans overrule councils’ plans and stipulate how many dwellings councils must provide in the next five years and beyond.
They delineate which suburbs and centres are to change and how. Yet, despite hundreds of pages, they don’t say much. They contain grand targets for jobs and housing. They offer bland demographic statistics and passé suburb descriptions.

The Australian Financial Review reported that their initial “details … were supplied … on the condition that no groups such as The Greens and local councils would be approached for comment.” Mmm. They talk about a planning “umbrella”, “design-led DAs”, a “transparent process” and “best-practice outcomes,” but it’s hypocrisy at its height.

I am skeptical, rapidly approaching cynical.

They don’t say on which street corner a new high-rise apartment block should be built, or what street should have bus or bike lanes, which parks need more trees, or even where there will be more parks, or where new train lines should be.

The Surry Hills urban chatterati queen and original New Zealander, Elizabeth Farrelly, says, “Planning has only one job; to defend the public interest against voracious private profit. In every decision, from mall to sprawl, airport to potting shed, planning need ask just a single, Solomon-esque question. Wherein lies the public good?”

This new commission neuters democratically elected councils, the ones meant to represent us.

It is facadism hiding a ‘femmocratic’ fascism.

The Greater – or lesser – Sydney Commission’s twenty district plans are now on exhibition until 31st March 2017. Have your say before it’s too late at: engagement@gsc.nsw.gov.au or phone 1800 617 681.

Andrew Woodhouse is President, Potts Point and Kings Cross Heritage and Residents’ Society

You May Also Like

Comments are closed.