Charmaine Simpson , of  Wollstonecraft 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)
I, Charmaine Simpson together with my husband, Stephen Simpson have
been the owners of Unit 4, 42 Morton Street, Wollstonecraft for over
40 years. I have lived in the area on and off for the last 50 years
prior to marriage and always admired the community and green leafy
open spaces of North Sydney Municipality. While we understand the need
for development, subject to early legislated infrastructure being in
place, we are shocked at the proposed level of development destined
for the Crows Nest Village not to mention the St Leonards precinct of
some 30-50 storey apartments.
We are abhorred at the State Government’s and concurrently North
Sydney Council’s lack of true and genuine consultation with the
community on this long term development intent to increase the
populous of this area by 7 to 10 fold over the next 16 years, which is
true madness and utterly irresponsible.
TAKE NOTE: This type of development will sway the community to vote
against the present State Government at the next election, ourselves
included and we have been Liberals voters all our lives.
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

• 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.