(Name withheld) , of  Kirribilli 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) - Objection

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 not
sustainable and is 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.

I object to what is in essence a developers' charter at the expense of
the amenity of the local community that is expected to carry a quite
disproportionate share of population growth.