Premier Mike Baird may have a clear mandate from the State election to partially lease electricity polls and wires to pay for future infrastructure, but the same cannot be said for forcing the amalgamation of local councils.
Premier Baird has said he believes NSW has too many Councils, but fell well short of committing his Government to forcing the merging of local authorities.
The development industry has been campaigning tirelessly to reduce the number of metropolitan councils largely based on a view that fewer councils means fewer regulations across local boundaries.
On the surface, that may seem appealing but the truth is that councils work to a standard instrument Local Environmental Plan (LEP) which sets out overall local planning guidelines and zonings but is approved by the State Department of Planning and Environment (DoPE). Sitting below the LEP is the council’s own Development Control Plan (DCP) which sets out specific conditions for developments in the Local Government Area.
However, councils only have authority to directly approve small developments, with most larger development applications addressed by the State-controlled Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) which has only two council representatives and three State appointees. If changes to the LEP or zoning for a major development are requested, then the decision-making body becomes the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) – also controlled by the State Government.
Whilst some councils can impose onerous conditions in their DCP, the biggest delays in development approvals can be attributed to the multilayered and inefficient State planning process that jumps between two tiers of Government, a State DoPE, and an appointed panel (JRRP). Add the PAC to the equation, and it is easy to see why the development industry wants a simpler process.
Forcing the amalgamation of councils is unlikely to streamline the planning process. In fact, local authority areas joined together are still likely to want specific DCPs for particular parts of their parish – just making the combined controls bigger and more difficult to navigate.
Add to this the fact that bigger councils mean bigger bureaucracies, which means longer times for development approvals.
The State Government now intends to establish a Greater Sydney Commission which will look at regional and sub-regional development planning, by somehow bringing together representatives from Local Government and State Departments, the community and stakeholders. How this will fit into the existing planning process will be interesting.
The Greater Sydney Commission proposes a system of regions (that appears to be based on amalgamated council boundaries) that will contribute to overall planning for the metropolitan area.
The reality is that Local Government feels it is being scapegoated for the failure of the planning process which is controlled by the State Government, and that merging local councils is a knee-jerk reaction. That some councils may be problematic for developers is not discounted, but the bigger problem rests with State planning laws and process. The fear is that amalgamation of councils and the operation of a new Greater Sydney Commission will complete disconnect local communities and add more layers of bureaucracy and red tape to planning approvals.
With many councils controlled by Liberal Mayors and councillors in electorates represented by ministers within his Cabinet, the Premier also knows he faces a potential minefield and significant political backlash in his heartland if he makes the wrong decision. Some Coalition Ministers and MPs have also stated publicly their opposition to dissecting or merging their local councils.
Added to this is evidence increasingly pointing to the costly failure of forced amalgamations elsewhere around the country, with supposed associated efficiencies for development approvals failing to eventuate.
Last year, former Queensland Premier Campbell Newman allowed four Councils forced to merge under Labor Premier, Anna Bligh, to finally de-amalgamate. He also gave Councils the option of reversing earlier forced amalgamations. Anna Bligh’s government more than halved the number of Queensland Councils from 157 to 73.
The peak body representing the State’s councils, Local Government New South Wales (LGNSW), has actively supported reform and greater efficiency measures by its member organisations, but insists any merger of councils should only be done voluntarily.
LGNSW has also been highly critical of false State Government claims that councils were collectively losing $1Million a day – a figure arrived by only adding up the losses by a few local authorities and not offsetting this with the budget surpluses actually made by many metropolitan councils.
The NSW Government has put together its ‘Fit For The Future’ criteria which few councils will meet regardless of how well they are performing financially and in providing services to their communities. (Interestingly, there is no mention of improving development approval times which is widely believed to be the real agenda behind the push for council amalgamations.) Size and scale requirements indicating a population base of about 250,000 residents for each local authority appears to be a benchmark designed for few to meet.
Interestingly, this benchmark ignores published data showing that with the exception of the City of the Sydney, four of the top six largest metropolitan councils have the worst financial performance.
Councils have until the end of June to approach the government with either a proposal to merge, or a solid justification against it.
Many councils will fight to stay independent, one group of lower North Shore councils (Ryde, Hunters Hill and Lane Cove) will propose a regional authority arrangement if they can’t remain independent, some will just ignore the State Government altogether and provide no submission, while a few may even decide to merge.
With no mandate, the Baird government faces a huge fight on many fronts if it chooses to force amalgamations on councils. This would be a major distraction from the positive legacy desired by the State Government … and a major gamble for developers expecting a better planning system in NSW.
