Source: http://botanybaycitycouncil.blogspot.com/2012_08_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 20:36:47
Document Index: 255271875

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3']

The O’Farrell Government has announced the effective sale of Port Botany to the private sector by putting it on the block as a 99 year lease. Whilst privatisation of public facilities may not be in accordance with my political philosophy, the decision is one for the government of the day and not Botany Bay City Council. In announcing the government’s intention to sell Port Botany several weeks ago, the Treasurer indicated that the government would remove the 3.2 million cap on containers. According to newspaper reports of the Treasurer’s statement, the removal of the cap would mean that the government would receive more than one billion dollars extra. The cap on containers, or Twenty foot Equivalent Units (or TEU’s) is not an arbitrary figure. It was stated on the 13 October, 2005 as one of the Conditions of Consent when the then Minister for Planning, the Hon Frank Sartor, determined a development application for State significant and designated development under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Clause A1.4 of that consent provided as follows:
A1.4 Port
throughput capacity generated by operations in accordance with this consent
shall be consistent with the limits specified in the EIS, that is, a maximum
throughput capacity at the terminal of 1.6 million TEU’s per annum and a total
throughput at Port Botany of 3.2 million TEU’s. These limits may not be
exceeded by the development without further environmental assessment and approval.
Sydney Ports Corporation shall prepare, or have prepared on its behalf, such
further environmental assessment for the determination of the Minister.
The expanded part of the Port is not yet completed. The total throughput capacity limits were designed because the transportation system could not, and cannot, cope with the movement of containers to and from the Port. The road system is currently in gridlock and that is without even the 3.2 million TEU throughput being reached. It beggars belief that a State Treasurer, with no credible knowledge or understanding of the Port, the environment or the capacity of the road and rail system, just wishes to arbitrarily remove throughput capacity limits because he thinks he will get another billion dollars in a sale of a public asset. The damage to existing infrastructure that the removal of the cap would lead to would, in reality, be a ten times what the Treasurer may receive. It is a frightening prospect that the Treasurer of the State does not seem to either understand this or just sees dollar signs in front of his eyes. Good governance of this state is no where in his equation. I am sorry to have to advise the Treasurer that he does not even have the lawful authority to do what he says he wishes to do. He seems to forget, or ignore, that the law binds the government of the day as it binds all citizens and the law requires the NSW Government to make an application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. To do what he says he wants to do, and stay within the law, requires the government undertake an environmental assessment and seek approval of a variation to the existing consent. I would be surprised if it was even possible to obtain an environmental assessment that could cater and make provision for the movement of freight with the cap being removed. In any event, the Treasurer and the NSW Government is bound by the law. Botany Bay City Council has decided to seek an
undertaking from the NSW Government that it will act in accordance with the law
and, if such undertaking is not received, then Council will institute proceedings against the NSW Government, seeking orders
restraining the Government from proceeding in accordance with the Treasurer’s
announcement other than by law.
Council has indicated publicly and clearly, and repeatedly, to the developers that it has no objection to the redevelopment of a modern shopping centre for Eastlakes. To say that the existing shopping centre is tired and in urgent need of revitalisation is stating the obvious. However, the developers see their pot of gold not in the redevelopment of the shopping centre. No, far from it. The rainbow leading to the pot of gold is found in the high rise, residential flat buildings over the shopping centre. Council has repeatedly said that the Eastlakes Shopping Centre development and the surrounding residential flat buildings are a disgraceful example of overdevelopment. Probably, the worst in our City. The existing structures are classic examples of what occurred in the 1960’s. They are also classic examples of what happed when this State was run by the Liberal Party under Barry O’Farrell’s predecessor Sir Robert Askin – a man not noted for turning his hand away from an ill-gotten gain. What all of us know all too well – there is little open space and amenity for residents and this area cannot tolerate any further residential density. What Council did do was that it indicated it would support a Master Planning Proposal, involving a shopping centre and residential development. But there was a proviso. Council strongly advocated the acquisition of the residential flat buildings at the corner of Racecourse Place, Gardeners Road and Evans Avenue as well as a detailed environmental master planning process. These were not prohibitive provisos – they would have enhanced any proposed development and given a focus for further redevelopment in the surrounding area. The approach to the former Government and the designation that the application would be determined under Part 3A were two strikes against sensible redevelopment. I had thought we had a glimmer of success with the change of government in 2011. I thought the people of Eastlakes would be protected by the mandate given to Premier O’Farrell to abolish the Part 3A provision. Premier O’Farrell after scrapping the Part 3A Provisions on 3 April, 2011, announced he had given increased planning powers back to local councils. There was, as I’ve said, that glimmer of hope. But, tragically, Premier O’Farrell has shown he is another opportune-seeking politician and his promise to devolve planning powers to local government, have been borne out to be a broken promise. I had written to the previous ministers of planning on a number of occasions to express my and Council’s concerns about the developer’s activities. Our entreaties fell on deaf ears. The developer made no genuine attempts to acquire the buildings Council identified to improve the quality and amenity of the proposed development. Rather, he directly and indirectly approached a number of previous Premiers and Planning Ministers in the former government. Personally, I had a bad feeling that something underhanded was happening in relation to these usual and totally inappropriate approaches. It was unreasonable and in stark contrast to Council’s reasonable approach. In my view, there was always something shifty about the communication with the Department of Planning at the very least. I have previously written to the Former Minister of Planning about a private meeting his Director General sought with the Council’s former General Manager about this application. I indicated in that letter that it was grossly improper for there to be private discussions with Council’s General Manager and the Director-General of the Department of Planning. The development application was referred to the State Government’s Planning and Assessment Commission and, in my view, the Commission deliberately listed the hearing of the matter on Jewish New Year. They knew full well I would not be able to attend. The conduct between the proponents and the former government in my view left me a very uneasy feeling – then and now. I was much relieved when the O’Farrell Government made the announcement on Part 3A assessment and the return of planning powers to local government. When it made the announcement, I wrote to the Planning Minister seeking for the application to be returned to Council for determination. However, for some bizarre reason the Minister for Planning, the Hon Brad Hazzard, refused to return this application to local government, namely to our Council in accordance with Barry O’Farrell’s promises and the mandate he received to keep those promises. I urged the Minister for Planning to examine the correspondence I have had with his predecessors. I advised the Minister that the developer seemed to have manipulated the government processes to this point and urged the Minister that any such application under Part 3A should not be retained for determination. I requested removing his department as the Consent Authority and send the application back to this Council in accordance with the stated O’Farrell Government’s policy. I advised the Minister that as the Eastlakes Shopping Centre was full of three storey walk-ups it was a planning disaster of the sixties and, as such, was very difficult to address. In addition, the population densities were far too great and any application had the opportunity not only to rectify the previous planning disasters but to generate some economic investment in this area. I urged the Minister for his personal intervention. Despite the Minister’s stated planning objectives and his Government’s policy, he refused to remove the application from the Provisions of Part 3A and said:
“I have asked the Department to further explore
with a proponent to Council the option of acquiring the adjacent flat buildings
as to integrate them into the development proposal. Failing this, it will be
necessary for the project to show how redevelopment of the site can occur
without isolating or compromising the ability to redevelop adjacent sites.”
Despite this assurance, there has been no discussion with Council whatsoever. All we’ve seen, or been given, is a Development Application received by the Department and which is to be placed on exhibition. The application, which is currently on exhibition, is the worst and most disgraceful overdevelopment of a site I have seen in all my 31 years as Mayor of this Council. The application contains 12 five to eight storey residential flat buildings with many containing room sizes that do not even match the State Environmental Planning Policy. Tragically, the designs suggest the buildings are smaller than the disgraceful developments of the sixties and seventies, which dot the adjoining streets. Worse still, the high rise buildings stand straight, right next to Eastlakes Reserve and provide, in effect no open space. Council’s Planning Officers are currently assessing the application and obtaining independent experts in an effort to deal with it on a merit basis. However, Council needs the support of the people of Eastlakes and the surrounding streets in opposing this application. Very often, in respect of dreadful attempts to redevelop parts of this area the public has trusted its Mayor and Councillors to represent their interests. This is an occasion where we urgently need the peoples’ support. I can’t help feeling it is too coincidental that the timing of this application being placed on exhibition is at a time when I am to leave the Office of Mayor. This could have been a deliberate action in the same way it was to refer the matter to the Planning and Assessment Commission. So bad is this application, and the stage it has reached, that I cannot but genuinely suspect there has been some gross impropriety not only for many years but also now. And that feelings flow from the former government to the present government. Council has also decided to refer the application to the Independent Commission Against Corruption with all the correspondence exchanged between the Mayor and the Council and the Department and Ministers with a view of the Commission using its powers to ascertain whether or not there has been any corrupt activity involved in the way in which this application has proceeded. I do not make this assertion lightly, and I have no evidence of it other than the fact that the nature of the application and the conduct of various participants is so bizarre and contrary to proper principles. As well, the costs of making the application in a manner in which it is made could not have occurred without aid and comfort being provided to the applicant. Posted by
"Dear Mr Hoenig, Re: You’re Resignation, Mr Hoenig, let me start by saying I am not happy with the news of your resignation. I first moved to Botany in 1967 as a 12 year old with my parents. My father’s work had him transferred to Botany, we were living in Drummoyne before that. You can imagine how I felt at the time, living in a bare unattractive and polluted suburb. I hated it. Then you came along. Well need I say more, for all you have done for this unbelievable little suburb and time has proven it. I am married with a family. My husband wanted us to move to Kensington when we married, but I fought to stay here for the way you transformed Botany . Thank you for the support you have given all us residents and let’s not forget that ‘Hail Storm’ when Botany Council was by our side helping us all as usual. When our rates are not paid on time, no threatening letters, when the elderly are unable to mow their lawns you are there I could go on and on. One of the best things you have accomplished is that the Council is not in debt and you have always put money back into the community. Now let’s see how our new Mayor stands up to you. We all know this will not happen so you can understand why I am not happy in you going. I have always felt safe, secure and justified with you leading the helm. One more bit of information, I have always voted Liberal, all my life. I have only ever voted Labour for you and you only. So I guess those days are now over. I do not think the Labour Party is worthy of you and your ethics. You will always be the only time I have voted Labour. With all the above aside, I can only wish you every bit of success and happiness in your future as you so deserve it. I hope they treat you as good as you have treated myself and all the residents in Botany. Yours faithfully,"
To all our residents as I said a couple of weeks ago when the Labor Party announced my decision to seek election to state parliament I said that I’ve been Mayor of the City of Botany Bay for over three decades, during which much has changed for the better. I said that it had been a privilege to serve as Mayor, our suburbs and our streets have undergone massive change. The successive Councils on which I represented our residents, worked relentlessly to transform what was a polluted industrial area into a modern and vibrant city, where the quality of life for residents is paramount. In this, I feel, without being immodest, I’ve had some success. I reminded our residents that many of the issues that impact on our every day lives are State Government issues. The cars and trucks that clog our main roads are now filtering through our residential streets. There’s aircraft noise, which can only be reduced by a second airport for Sydney and the need for proper and efficient public transport for all residents of Heffron. There’s also the vital issue of planning. The State Government is moving to bring in a planning system that will let bureaucrats and outsiders with no local knowledge decide what will be built in our neighbourhoods and next to our homes. We have to stop this and State Parliament is the place to stop it. The only way I can make our local voice heard is for me to represent you and all of of Heffron residents in State Parliament. For a better way of life for all our residents, State Parliament is where I can work on you behalf. Residents should understand that if I am elected as the State Member for Heffron I will still be here fighting for your interests and quality of life as I always have.