KOGARAH community group representatives donned red clothes and posed outside a row of heritage houses to remind the state government its proposed new planning legislation outlined in its white paper was unacceptable.
Red, they said, represented "danger", community "anger" and a plea to "stop" and have another look at what was being done.
Jill Whan, of Kogarah Historical Society, Glynn Pulling and Leesha Payor, of Kogarah Progress Association, and former Kogarah and Rockdale councillor Anne Field live in hope that the government will pay attention to their submissions and the 6000 others received.
They said the proposed legislation would be devastating to the community and should be scrapped or dramatically altered.
They are particularly concerned that the white paper makes little provision for the protection of heritage buildings and fear that more of Kogarah's history will be destroyed in the same way as Griffith House.
"The reforms proposed by the O'Farrell government represent nothing short of a gazumping of the community rights," Ms Field said.
"Prior to the state election in March 2011, the O'Farrell team promised 'a return of planning powers to the local community'.
"This document shows this to most likely amount to 'misleading and deceptive conduct', suggesting this was a ploy to win votes.
"The white paper gives significantly more weight to economic growth [and] to the interests of developers than to the needs of ordinary residents and communities.
"This does not allow for a fair and balanced approach to planning."
While the white paper's public exhibition period ended in June, community groups said it was not too late to make their views known to MPs in the area and join groups such as the Better Planning Network.
They said that if the legislation was not altered, the government would face a long period of grass-roots activism.
LITANY OF PROBLEMS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
SOME key concerns of the white paper that Kogarah community groups believe need to be examined.
Developments passed without any community involvement or consultation.
Other regional or state-significant developments will have only 14 or 28 days public notice/consultation, which they say is far from adequate for developments of such magnitude.
Environmental protection zones, including national parks (E1) and conservation areas (E2) to be merged; E3 and E4 removed and replaced by general rural and residential zones. Some of the state’s most environmentally sensitive lands will lose all protection.
The concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development completely removed from the white paper.
Climate change excluded from the paper; particularly worrying in drought-prone areas and coastal fringes where beach and river erosion is increasing.
Role of local councils greatly diminished in planning policy and approvals. Many could be made to amalgamate and cut back staff, reducing the level of service available to ratepayers.
Neither infrastructure nor housing affordability are properly addressed.
The minister has power to overrule any LEP or local zonings and amend strategic plans. There are risks of corruption when so much power is handled by so few and this makes the whole idea of ‘‘community consultation’’ laughable and void.
Developers have rights of appeal and the right to request spot rezoning, whereas the public doesn’t.
Expansion in the use of private certifiers in assessment roles of new developments. This is fundamentally flawed because certifiers are paid and employed by the developer, not independently.
Strategic compatibility certificates will allow developers to override existing local controls until the new plans are introduced and possibly after.
The lack of protection of cultural and architectural heritage. Key decision-making on the 1600 state-significant listed heritage items passed from NSW Heritage Council to the Department of Planning, which will also take on the role of assessing Aboriginal culture and heritage.
See response from Planning Department: http://www.theleader.com.au/story/1674916/proposed-planning-changes-defended/?cs=12
