Annette Truman , of  St Leonards NSW, made the following submission on the project:

St Leonards and Crows Nest - Draft Special Infrastructure Contribution Plan

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:
• I object 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%.
• I object because 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.
• I object because the plan is therefore theoretical and must be
rethought entirely based on a
lower population increase and a lesser number of apartments.
• I object because 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.
• I object because theGovernment’s role is to provide basic
infrastructure funded from exiting
taxation and grant funds raised from things like Stamp Duties and
Commonwealth contributions.
• I object because the SIC is just another form of tax ultimately
paid by consumers
• I object because the SIC will not help provide affordable housing.
• I object because 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.
• I object because the Councils will lose the ability to raise money
or In-Kind agreements by the
abolition of Voluntary Planning Agreements.
• I object because 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.
• I object because 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.