(Name withheld) , of  Paddington NSW, made the following submission on the project:

Legislative Updates

I am a planning lawyer with over 30 years experience.
There are a number of good things in the package and I
commend those, in particular the following:
1.The Department of Planning & other Government Agencies (eg:the RMS) having to commit to a community participation charter.
2.Provisions to tighten up CDCs and private certifiers and give Councils additional resources in that regard, as the community is very disgruntled about CDCs and private certifiers..
3.Provisions to reverse the effect of the decision in Windy Dropdown regarding unauthorized building work/development.
Again this has been a major cause of community disgruntlement, and developers are "gaming" the system.

Comments on other areas include:
1.I do not agree that replacement of the object of "orderly and economic development" with "timely" does not effect a change in emphasis.I would like to see "timely" removed and"orderly and economic" remain.Again, the community feels that there is an over emphasis on expedition at the expense of good outcomes.
2.I think IHAPS are a good idea but suggest that there be a minimum of 4 members, the Chair (who is usually a lawyer), 2 experts (ideal is a planner and architect/urban designer)
and 1 community rep.In the event of a 2 all drawer the Chair have the casting vote.I think the IHAPs in Mosman and Cumberland (which I have knowledge of) work well.SomeIHAPS have 5 members, 4 experts & 1 community member).
3. No rationale has been given for the amendment of section 97B in relation to costs in 34AA residential development appeals and this is not actually mentioned in the explanatory notes so many people may not know it is proposed (unless they read the draft Bill which lets face it is heavy going).Councils like section 97B as it gives them some small monetary compensation for applicants who use the land & Environment Court as a design forum.
4.Has any thought been given to amending the Act to require a section 96 application to require a clause 4.6 objection if it
breaches a development standard?I would commend this as another way to stop developer's "gaming" the system by getting approved something that complies with for example FSR and height controls and then lodging a section 96 application (often after they have done the work) and under the current state of case law, a clause 4.6 objection is not required then so there is a less strict legal test in those circumstances.I have a lot of trouble explaining this anomoly to Council planners and members of the community.