"Issue # 1409      6 May 2009

NSW heritage dumped for dollars

Peter Mac

Thirty-five years ago NSW was a leader in the conservation of places and buildings that are of importance to the public for historical, social or aesthetic reasons, which we now know as heritage. However, the NSW heritage legislation introduced during the 1970s has now been undermined to the point where protection requirements can be overturned at the whim of the government.

The former Iemma government introduced legislation which would enable the State Minister for Planning, or the Planning Assessment Commission which is appointed by the Minister, to take over responsibility for approval of any major development application that it considered to be a project “of state significance”. It could thus overrule a local council’s rejection of development, even when the council’s decision was based on perfectly valid objections from local residents and others.

The former independent Heritage Office of NSW, which frequently expressed opinions of which the government disapproved, was also absorbed into the State Planning department.

New broom fails to sweep clean

After the appalling Wollongong Council “sex and bribery” development scandal, then premier Iemma, his Minister for Planning Frank Sartor and other ministers voluntarily resigned or were forced to do so. At that point some people entertained the forlorn hope that this would lead to a more enlightened approach by the new ALP government headed by Nathan Rees.

But no! The new Minister for Planning, Kristina Keneally, has decreed that the current financial crisis justifies broadening the “state significance” criteria, and removing obstacles to approval of development applications, because every major project would boost the state’s economy. So as far as heritage is concerned, the criteria for approval of projects which involve altering or demolishing heritage property becomes the dollar value of the project, not the cultural value of the place for this and future generations.

The government appears to have distanced itself from corruption by getting the Planning Assessment Commission to deal with any project where the developer has made a financial contribution to the ALP, or where the minister has a conflict of interest. However, developers are now to be included in the Commission, just to make sure that it gives the right answer. The government apparently sees no conflict of interest for itself in this arrangement.

To facilitate matters, approval of retail commercial and industrial development will be fast tracked, and there’ll also be a far larger number of “state significance” determinations. To qualify as being of state significance, the value of a project previously had to be $50 million. However, this has now been reduced to $10 million, so responsibility for dealing with a far greater proportion of major development applications can now be brought directly under the control of the government.

Amendments which the government is making to the Heritage Act will make it harder for items to be listed, and easier for them to be struck off. In February the government also introduced a new code which requires councils to make decisions on the approval of new homes that are proposed for sites bigger than 450 square metres.

The councils were not consulted. The president of the Local Government Association, Gina MCaffery, commented bitterly: “They made changes to administration of codes five days before (its launch). That change needed the complete change of council systems to do it and we’re meant to cop it.”

In fact, in most cases the councils will not have sufficient time to notify adjacent property owners and deal with objections, so the applications will fail by default of the 10 day requirement. Most housing developments that exceed $10 million, and thus qualify as potential projects of state significance, are built on sites of at least 450 square metres. The government has therefore cleared the way to take over the responsibility for approval for any major housing project.

Who approves the new arrangements?

Development corporations are said to be delighted with the new minister’s performance in the job, although they also want to be compensated for loss of development profits, if a property is placed on the state heritage list, because it might prevent development of the site.

Ms Keneally herself is said to be immensely proud of the fact that she and the Commission have approved 240 new projects since September 8, i.e. fifty more than her odious predecessor did in his last six months in office.

On the other hand, Ms McCaffery has expressed deep concern about “the power that has moved from local communities and centralised in Macquarie Street”. Greens MP Sylvia Hale noted that the government’s initiatives were “most loved by people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing”.