EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL Meeting No 1541 Tuesday 18 June 2013 Notice No 5/1541 Notice Date 14 June 2013 Tuesday 18 June 2013 948 INDEX TO MINUTES ITEM PAGE NO 1. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ........................................................................ 948 2. STATE GOVERNMENT REVIEWS: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PLANNING ........................................................................................................ 949 PRESENT The Right Hon The Lord Mayor Councillor Clover Moore (Chair) Councillors - Irene Doutney, Christine Forster, Jenny Green, Robyn Kemmis, Robert Kok, Edward Mandla, John Mant, Linda Scott and Angela Vithoulkas. At the commencement of business at 4.33pm, those present were:- The Lord Mayor, Councillors Doutney, Forster, Green, Kemmis, Kok, Mandla, Mant, Scott and Vithoulkas. Councillor Mandla left the extraordinary meeting of Council at 5.00pm during discussion on Item 2 and did not return. The Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Director Legal and Governance, Director City Planning, Development and Transport, Director City Engagement, Acting Director City Operations and Acting Director City Life were also present. Opening Prayer The Lord Mayor opened the meeting with prayer and an acknowledgement of country. ITEM 1 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST (a) Section 451 of the Local Government Act 1993 No Councillors disclosed any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in any matter on the agenda for this extraordinary meeting of Council. (b) Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 No disclosures were made by any members of the public at this extraordinary meeting of Council. 949 Tuesday 18 June 2013 ITEM 2 STATE GOVERNMENT REVIEWS: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PLANNING FILE NO: S051491 MINUTE BY THE LORD MAYOR To Council: The City of Sydney endorses the need for a modern 21st century system of local government and planning in New South Wales to secure the environmental, social, cultural and economic sustainability of our city and our state. Reform should strengthen the capacity of local government to deliver for our diverse communities and for NSW. The fundamental role of a democratically elected local council is to provide leadership and governance for its local area. Local government best serves its communities when it is truly “local” in character, especially in the context of Australia’s three-tier system of government. Good local government engages with its communities to establish an integrated vision for its area. It understands the aspirations of its people, leads debate on important issues affecting our future, and delivers results on its vision. A reform process must begin with an understanding of the role of local government and its role in local planning, and be based on clear principles. It needs a logical and structured approach that genuinely engages with local government and our communities and should involve reform across all three tiers of government, not just local government. This is not occurring with the State Government’s current reviews, which involve untested, complex and even contradictory proposals that could initiate years of chaos and disruption, with little demonstrated benefit. Rather than increased capacity, the current directions will reduce the role and authority of local government. The process risks destroying the opportunity for reform and limits genuine public input. More importantly, the proposals would radically change local government and impact on people’s rights to shape their neighbourhood. There is no demonstrated case that the radical changes proposed will benefit the City of Sydney. As confirmed by the State Government and its various reviews, the City is a financially strong, well-run council. There is no compelling evidence that the proposed “super Sydney Council” recommended by the Sansom Review would deliver meaningful benefits for our communities and it involves significant transition costs. I am particularly concerned that most people in the community do not know about the proposed changes or how they can have their say. Our own expert staff are struggling to complete detailed submissions by the deadline of Friday 28 June. This Lord Mayoral Minute recommends that Council requests the State Government to extend the submission deadline and revise its current processes to achieve better outcomes. I propose that we work with other Councils in NSW to achieve a program of positive reform. Tuesday 18 June 2013 950 And I recommend action to inform our communities and give them the opportunity to express their views and/or make submissions. THE STATE GOVERNMENT REVIEWS ARE: 1. The Planning White Paper The Planning White Paper and draft new planning legislation is complex and our staff are continuing to review the documents to understand the implications for our City. Following are some aspects that will be of most concern to the community. The Government proposes reducing the community’s say on development applications in their neighbourhood. Involvement would be largely limited to up-front strategic plans every four years. Most development applications won’t be publically notified. Up to 80 per cent of all development applications would go through ‘tick-a-box’ approvals, without Council having a say on design quality and unexpected impacts. The proposed system prioritises financial viability over the environment and urban design. Ecological considerations and preparing for climate change, which should be the basis of a 21st century planning system, are not even mentioned. The draft legislation gives the Minister power to call in and determine development without explanation. 2. Independent Local Government Review Panel – ‘Future Directions for NSW Local Government twenty essential steps’ (Sansom Review) The Sansom Review recommends a greatly expanded “Super Sydney Council” but has given no compelling, evidence-based case for change. The proposed council area would be five times bigger than our current size, with 800,000 residents - a population larger than the entire state of Tasmania. The Review points to Auckland as a model – yet Auckland has spent $100 million on its amalgamation and is now struggling with massive debt currently worth around $6,000 per ratepayer, forecast to treble from $2 billion to $12.5 billion over the next decade. And to deal with the loss of local representation Auckland established 21 local boards. The result is that there are now 170 elected politicians - 149 elected Local Board members plus the Mayor and 20 Councillors. The Review mistakenly claims that only a super council can engage in significant strategic planning or undertake regional projects such as light rail and cycleways. But we’re already doing that at the City and we share our work with other councils. Our balanced budgets, no debt, record $1.9 billion 10 year infrastructure program, the free rates we give our pensioners, our investment in light rail, a new town centre at Green Square, our work to promote a dynamic night time economy and thriving cultural life, our plans for new childcare centres and beautifully designed parks and community facilities are all much greater priorities than the extended disruption and huge financial cost of massively expanding our council area. 951 Tuesday 18 June 2013 3. Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney The City of Sydney, as the heart of the global city, is in a unique position and currently operates as its own planning sub-region. The Government’s proposed revision of the Metropolitan Plan would subsume the City into an enormous ‘Global Sydney’ region covering 18 councils – from the CBD to north of the Bridge, east to the sea and as far west as Ryde. A Sub-Regional Planning Board, appointed by the State Government, would oversee this ‘Global Sydney’ region. It would set plans to reach Government targets, and local councils would be forced to comply. We already have a Sub-Regional Planning Board in place – the Central Sydney Planning Committee. It is a model that works well and should be allowed to continue. 4. Local Government Acts Taskforce (‘A New Local Government Act for NSW Discussion Paper’) The Taskforce discussion paper recognises that a new Local Government Act should focus on the role of local government, with a simplified and flexible framework. It also recognises the importance of the City of Sydney as a global city and supports retaining the City of Sydney Act, including the Central Sydney Planning Committee and the Central Sydney Traffic and Transport Committee as effective mechanisms to deal with issues of state and national significance. However, this Taskforce cannot develop any meaningful proposals until there is broad public consensus on the role of local government and the direction for reform. A COMPLEX AND CONFUSING PROCESS These reviews are not working together or adequately informed by each other. The complex and confusing process risks destroying the opportunity for reform and is limiting genuine public input. The rhetoric is for increased strategic capacity, efficiency and effectiveness, but the proposed actual directions will reduce the role, capacity and authority of local government. The Sansom Review proposes the amalgamation of up to seven inner-Sydney councils to create a new “super Sydney” council area. A submission made on behalf of six of the Mayors highlights risks and no demonstrated benefit. I strongly support the position in that submission that the City of Sydney does not support a merger as proposed by the Sansom Panel. The