The newspapers are full of bullish predictions for 2021 on the back of the development of a COVID vaccine and the expectation that President Joe Biden will be pumping up the economy with Federal Reserve cash.
 

There has been a lot of focus on economic policy over the past year and lots of promises have been made – particularly in the area of Planning Reform in NSW.
 

The planning reform agenda has been informed by the NSW Productivity Commission Green Paper and its separate review into infrastructure contributions.  Unfortunately, some in the planning space have resisted reform, even rejected the need for it altogether. Some do not appreciate the nexus between quality planning involving an up-front acknowledgement of economic growth as the key objective of the planning system and the actors within it.
 

The key to success in 2021 will be holding the public servants and their political masters responsible for the delivery of the sensible commitments they made during the height of the COVID 19 Pandemic.
 

The imperative of economic growth represents a conundrum for planners.  Sydney, more than Melbourne, Perth or Brisbane, is constrained by geography and topography.  Ocean to the east, mountains to the west, National Parks to the north and south.  Growth therefore requires lateral thought and necessarily dictates changes to the local character of the suburbs we grew up in.  Well designed, well built, high rise development will be increasingly needed to house the growing population.  Our population must grow until at least 2045, so we can afford to pay for the baby boomer generation’s care as they progressively leave the workforce – too often without enough superannuation to pay for their retirement years. Ignoring this is simply not an option.
 

The economic reality is if we want to pay our nurses more (and for that matter, our pre-school, infants, primary and secondary school teachers), improve the quality of aged care, continue the advances in medical health which increase both the quality and length of life, then we need to ensure there is a revenue base.
 

Read the full article as published in Sourceable here.

The NSW road authorities have been conning Ministers for years.

Under the old RTA, the Cross City Tunnel was supposed to transform William Street into a Parisian boulevard – it hasn’t.  With RMS, a new road agency called WestConnex was similarly supposed to enable the transformation of the “Scar through the heart of Sydney” to allow for the construction of up to 50,000 new homes (depending on which report you read). It hasn’t.  The old DMR almost sent the NSW Government into insolvency with the cost blow-outs on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Pacific Highway was supposed to take 10 years for the completion of the duplication between Hexham and the Queensland border – as announced in 1996 (they are still going).

The WestConnex Tunnel is complete – and nothing has changed on Paramatta Rd – other than the housing targets have been reduced and the Inner West Council has doggedly resisted any change. Just as the Roads agencies under the guise of WestConnex did the unthinkable and completed a project on time, the planning agencies stepped in the obliterate the promised transformation.

In any sensible world, this would be a project led by DPIE. The corridor traverses multiple Council areas.  The NSW Government began with a centralised approach when Urban Growth undertook the first Parramatta Rd transformation study in 2015.  This was further detailed in 2016 along with an implementation plan and local infrastructure study. The published 30-year growth target for the corridor was between 40,000 and 50,000.  Then Mike Baird’s authority and Premiership was decimated by the failed Council amalgamation process.  The new Berejiklian government handed control back to Councils.  The co-ordinated approach needed to implement change was abandoned.  It is therefore no surprise that Ministers are still making promises of change – but nothing much is happening.
 

Now we get promises of funding for public art – but nothing in terms of planning leadership. See further details of recent announcements and the Urban Taskforce response in the links below.

Read Urban Taskforce Media Release here.
See Urban Taskforce mentioned in the Sourceable here.

One area that has caught the attention of the public has been the “make work scheme” City of Sydney have designed for architects.  To get a building approved in Sydney, the developer must pay for 6 architects with each to receive $150K.  That is in addition to the architect who worked with developer, the urban designer, the engineers, the heritage consultant, the planning consultant, the traffic and transport consultant, the acoustic specialist, the solar access analyst, the archaeological consultant, etc.
 

Worse, of those six architects, one must be an “emerging architect”.  But all first must have won an Australian Institute of Architects commendation and have a minimum of 50% female representation in both the design team and in the leadership of the project.
 

Urban Taskforce strongly supports improving opportunities for women and for emerging architects.  But this complicated and expensive set of obligations will add significant cost and could kill off the feasibility of projects from the start.
 

The City of Sydney has also taken a wrong turn by removing the bonuses for residential high rise and favouring only commercial development.  Their policy was developed before COVID-19 hit, but they have refused to change.  Flexibility is the key to stimulating investment and consumer choice.
 

The Minister needs to think very carefully before rubber stamping this strategy as it is not in the interests of the economy and will work against jobs growth.

Read Urban Taskforce mentioned in the Daily Telegraph here.
View Channel 7 News coverage here.