Joy Heads , of  WOLLSTONECRAFT NSW, made the following submission on the project:

St Leonards and Crows Nest - Draft Special Infrastructure Contribution Plan

Director - Key Sites Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39, SYDNEY, NSW 2001

St Leonards Crows Nest 2036 Draft Plan - Special Infrastructure
Contribution (SIC)

The proposed SIC is a new approach by the Department of Planning to
up-front funding to be paid by developers and to be used for priority
infrastructure delivered by government at the same time development is
occurring. The St Leonards Crows Nest precinct proposed SIC is set at
$15,100 per dwelling and is just another form of tax. Like planning,
spending on Infrastructure is required before, not concurrent, with
the construction of buildings. In the SLCN precinct the amount that is
indicated to be collected is $113,628,000. This suggests there will be
7,525 dwellings (the Draft Green Plan nominates 6,800 dwellings).

I object to the introduction of this proposed SIC because:

• The planning package for SLCN Is based on a 100% increase in
population from 13,250 in 2016 to 26,400 in 2036. This is
non-sustainable and well above the increase in the Greater Sydney
population of 36%, and substantially above the increase in the North
District plans of 22%.

• The number of apartments already approved by the Lane Cove Council
or Independent Panels will significantly reduce the number of
apartments that will contribute to the SIC over 20 years. This is
especially so if the St Leonards South project does not go ahead as
planned " which it certainly should not.

• The plan is therefore theoretical and must be rethought entirely
based on a lower population increase and a lesser number of
apartments.

• Spending on major infrastructure must be made well in advance of
the developments proceeding. It ignores the basic requirement that
infrastructure planning needs to be done well in advance and not on ad
hoc developments proposed by developers for individual sites. That is
why Councils are best suited to dealing with In-Kind agreements (VPAs)
for particular community issues.

• Government’s role is to provide basic infrastructure funded from
exiting taxation and grant funds raised from things like Stamp Duties
and Commonwealth contributions.

• The SIC is just another form of tax ultimately paid by consumers

• The SIC will not help provide affordable housing.

• The report from SEC is hardly an endorsement of the SIC. Instead
it points to the finite nature of the ability to raise even more tax.

• Councils will lose the ability to raise money or In-Kind
agreements by the abolition of Voluntary Planning Agreements.

• The proposal is designed to achieve or has the result of more
central control by removing the ability of local government to perform
its proper role.

• The proposal in its present form provides no guarantee that money
collected will be quarantined for its intended purpose, and no
guarantee that it will actually be spent at all. If past experience is
any guide, the funds collected will go into consolidated revenue where
it will be lost in the perpetual arguments between state and local
government to release funds.


NAME: Joy Heads OIAM

1/36 Milner Crescent, Wollstonecraft 2065