Sydney Growth Paths

COMMENT ON

The Benefits and Costs of Alternative Growth Paths for Sydney: Economic,Social and Environmental Impacts,
Centre for International Economics

Tony Recsei
12 March 2012


A report that was commissioned by the previous Labor Government in New South Wales and delivered back in December 2010 has only now been released by the current Government. This report, by the Centre for International Economics, is titled The Benefits and Costs of Alternative Growth Paths for Sydney: Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts (CIE Report). It examines alternative ways in which additional people could be housed in Sydney.

The New South Wales Department of Planning has projected that the population of the Sydney region will increase from 4.3 million in 2006 to 6.0 million by 2036, an annual increase of 57,000 people (NSWDOP, 2008),. For a number of reasons, including overcrowding and environmental concerns, most of the public oppose such an increase in the population (PC, 2011a; EMC).

THE METROPOLITAN STRATEGY

New South Wales Government sees planning doctrines based on higher population densities to house this projected increase. Its planning policy, known as The Metropolitan Strategy, works on locating some 70% of new dwellings within existing urban communities (in-fill) and 30% in greenfield sites (NSWDOP, 2005). The policy is implemented by ministerial directives and State Environmental Planning Policies issued by the Minister of Planning. These are promulgations issued by ministerial fiat and are not even tabled in parliament, let alone debated there.

To accomplish this 70/30 strategy the Department of Planning in effect has placed a restrictive growth boundary around Sydney to force higher-densities into existing residential areas. Greenfield land release has been reduced from an historic 10,000 lots per year to less than 2,000 (NSWDOP, 2010; Note 1). In tandem with this reduction in housing land availability the Department of Planning insists that local authorities plan for a specified increase in the number of dwellings in their areas. This insistence is backed by the threat of taking away their planning powers if they resist. This authoritarian impost is reflected in the finding that the majority of communities report that they feel their governments are not concerned with community preferences on planning issues (PC, 2011b). Existing policies are thus undemocratic and widely resented. But can they be justified in terms of public good?

THE CIE REPORT

It is possible to find some answers to this question in the CIE Report. This examines three different scenarios for Sydney for the period covered by the Metropolitan Strategy. These portray alternatives of 90%, 70% and 50% of new housing to be built in existing urban areas (and correspondingly 10%, 30% and 50% in greenfield sites).

The report assembles evidence which appears to favour densification against fringe development. However this evidence is very flimsy. It may well be that the reason for the delay in releasing the report was to avoid scrutiny of this flimsy evidence base.

FINDINGS OF THE CIE REPORT

The report finds that when compared to the current Metropolitan Strategy 70/30 ratio being implemented, that a 90/10 proportion would save $795 million (or $1,761 per dwelling) whereas a 50/50 proportion would cost an additional $4,992 million (or $11,064 per dwelling). It also finds that for 100% of new dwellings in Greenfield sites the additional 25 year cost per dwelling would be $26,000. The report does not attempt to proportion these costs and benefits between the public and private sectors.

The CIE Report is of a much higher standard than previous reports on the subject. But despite this, it contains some serious flaws.

CURRENT CONDITIONS ASSUMED AS A BASIS

For its findings the CIE Report calculates costs for the two additional scenarios to the Metropolitan Strategy’s 70/30 policy that it examines. These costs are shown as differences from the current 70/30 strategy, which is taken as a zero base. But the Metropolitan Strategy produces market distortions in that it has caused a severe shortage of land on the fringe which has grossly inflated the cost of housing. The report states “Sydney is considered to be the most expensive city for housing in Australia and one of the most expensive cities in the world. In this context housing affordability has been a key issue of concern to the community” (p. 178). But in its calculations the CIE Report does not take into account the effect of the land shortages resulting from the 70/30 strategy on the cost structure of the other two scenarios examined.

It is noticeable that as part of the trend resulting from the Metropolitan Strategy, over a five-year period (2000 to 2004) annual greenfield housing land production on the Sydney fringe decreased by 6000 lots. During this period the median price of lots in Sydney escalated from $150,000 to $350,000 (UDIA, 2009). As a result of this trend the median price of a house in Sydney is now about $650,000 (Note 2), far more than it need be (Note 3).

The 90/10 strategy, with a mechanism of further intensification of the current growth ring boundary restriction, would reduce the supply of land still further from that of the 70/30 strategy. As a result of supply and demand this shortage would lead to still higher prices. In contrast, a 50/50 strategy, with its relaxation of the growth ring boundary restriction would increase the land supply and result in lower prices.

Not taking into account price variations caused by land shortages has two implications for the report. Firstly, if they had been taken into account, this would have had the potential to significantly change the relative cost differences found between the scenarios examined. Secondly, such differences as have been found are comparatively trivial. They are completely swamped by the magnitude of the actual cost of houses.

It should be noted that coinciding with an increase in housing cost has been a deterioration of the economy of New South Wales relative to other Australian states. It has become noticeable that there has been some movement of people and employment to other centres (Berkovic N., 2007; Salt B., 2008; Colebatch T., 2011), Sydney employers not only have to pay excessive rentals caused by land scarcity, they also have to pay increased salaries to enable employees to meet their high housing costs. This also is not taken into account in the CIE Report.


TRANSFORMATION BENEFITS

The CIE Report quantifies “transformation benefits” that will accrue from individual developments. It defines a “transformation benefit” as one that “relates to the value people place on living in different areas above and beyond the cost of providing dwellings in these places. This incorporates all private costs incurred and benefits received by households and developers in producing dwellings and making decisions about where to live” (p.12).

Under this heading the report sets out figures on a range of costs and benefits. The calculations are based on the distorted market conditions and result from three factors. These are:
• developer profits that are estimated from reported actual developer profits;
• theoretical gains to households from being able to buy a property that they prefer to other properties and
• gains to existing landholders if they can get higher prices for their land.

These factors of course will be influenced by many elements including the inflated land costs discussed in the previous section, a variable which the CIE Report does not take into account. The land shortage caused by the Metropolitan Strategy is likely to result in higher profits for developers building multistorey apartments than would be the case if buyers had the choice of single-residential housing at lower prices that would result from policies with less restrictions.

Further, it is questionable whether such private sector impacts should be included and whether such items are legitimate matters of public policy concern.

If transformation benefits are to be included, then, for consistency, impacts on other parties such as existing residents should also be quantified. These impacts include:

• The impact on the value of a single-residential property that has high-rise built next to it. This can include theft of amenity - new infill residents look over gardens of existing residents while the latter have to look onto unsightly structures, suffer lack of privacy and overshadowing. The report states, but does not take into consideration, that this can depress the value of property by as much as 30 per cent (p.121);
• Congestion - existing residents have to suffer from increasingly congested streets and shortage of street parking (Cox W., 2010; Note 4);
• Shortage of recreational facilities – as more vacant land is built upon in an existing community originally designed for low density, it becomes impractical to find new open areas. This means that the community cannot meet the recreational needs of the additional population for sport and other outdoor activities;
• The general effect of more and more high-rise in a former predominantly single-residential neighbourhood including a perception that an increase in the incidence of crime is associated with denser areas (which the CIE Report finds is beyond its scope to consider, p.61);
• Reduction in housing choice. Most infill development consists of apartments which are not suitable for bringing up young children (Randolph B., 2006; Recsei T., 2011). Indeed the majority of those currently living in apartments do not do so by choice. They can be described as the economically engaged, battlers or those achieving education (Easthope H., 2009). Indeed multi-storey apartments are not even acceptable to most people wishing to downsize if they have other choices (Levi J., 2010);
• Reduction in biodiversity - the impact of gardens and open space being replaced with unit blocks has a severe effect on urban plant and animal life (Conacher Travers, 2000);
• Heritage items valued by the community are often lost (National Trust, 2011);
• Human health - high density considerably increases the incidence of mental illness (rates of schizophrenia almost double), (Lederborgen F.et al) and there are other documented negative health effects (Maas J. et al 2009);
• Atmospheric pollution. There is a local effect on residents of atmospheric pollution (Mustafić H,, et al, 2012) in high-density. This is due to less volume of air being available for dilution and dispersion and to higher traffic densities;


These impacts on existing residents, if quantified into the report’s transformation benefit calculations, would probably completely change its overall findings.

QUESTIONS ON COSTS

(a) Electricity and water

The report alleges that electricity consumption is greater in houses than in apartments. This is incorrect. Studies show that consumption per capita is greater in apartments (Myors P. et al 2005). It appears that the data relied upon in the report apparently does not take into account the significant common electricity consumption of the whole apartment block which include energy used by such items as lifts, lighting common areas such as foyers and car spaces and the common components of air conditioning. Studies also show that, contrary to expectation, that per capita water consumption is no different for those living in units than for people living in single-residential housing (Troy P. et al, 2005).

High-density advocates claim that infrastructure costs will be saved by imposing higher densities onto communities originally designed for lower densities. However the opposite has occurred. In the period since high-density policies have had time to have a significant effect, the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has authorised unprecedented increases in water tariffs of 40%, sewerage of 18% and electricity of 100%. All of these within a four year period. This has resulted in economic hardship to sections of the community (Note 5).

If, in the future, planners want to save on reticulation costs by maximising the use of localised energy (sunlight) and water (rain) then the greater the roof area per occupant the more feasible this will be.

(b) Transport

As far as transport is concerned the report makes three important admissions. The authors say:
• “there is no clear guide as to whether total transport costs (congestion and infrastructure) will be higher in a growth path focused on fringe or in existing areas” (p.72)
• “travel times are relatively similar across different regions, as people who face lower time costs of travel choose to travel further, and people on the fringe typically travel on less congested roads and walk less” (p.74)
• “For future fringe areas, the transport patterns for work journeys will depend on where employment is located. The share of employment that occurs locally could also change through time as businesses take advantage of better availability of labour on the fringe” (p.75).

But despite these uncertainties, the report produces specific figures for its scenario comparisons and finds that the cost of major road infrastructure in the fringe alternative would be $18,000 per dwelling and for public transport $9,000 (p.78).

CONCLUSION

Firstly, the findings of the CIE report are marred by the fact that some of the costs that it uses on which to base conclusions are questionable and the fact that not all significant factors are covered. If costs and benefits were fully accounted for, including the costs and benefits born by existing residents, a case for emphasising densification over fringe development would simply not stand up.

Secondly, the report’s findings, such as they are, make the unpopular Metropolitan Strategy 70/30 policy that has been imposed onto communities difficult to justify. When the number of dwellings and the time period involved are taken into consideration, the cost differential found between the scenarios it examines is too small to justify imposing a particular policy. Overall for the 50/50 scenario, the report finds the additional cost per new dwelling to be $11,064 per house over a full 25 year period. This is an infinitesimal amount compared to the costs that people have to pay for houses described earlier, costs which have been exacerbated by excesses that are generated by the current growth-boundary policy. A high proportion of people currently forced to live in blocks of units would probably prefer to live in lower densities on the fringe. It is bizarre that their preferences should be outlawed in order to save a paltry sum of money.

Fourteen months went by between the date that this report was completed and the date when it was released. Why the delay?

At the time it was completed it may well have been an embarrassment both for the Department of Planning and the then government. Neither would have cared to admit just a few months before the 2011 March election that the major reason they had provided for an unpopular policy, namely cost difference, proved to be insignificant.

If costs and benefits are fully accounted for, including those born by existing residents, the case for a policy of densification over fringe development cannot be supported. If we must have urban growth in Sydney there is no justification to continue to frustrate the popular demand of the community that desires more of it to be on the fringe and less of it as in-fill.

Unwanted high-rise development represents theft from the community. It reduces the amenity of existing residents and reduces the monetary value of their properties. It transfers that value to property developers without recompense. This theft is abetted by autocratic fiats imposed by the developers' collaborators in government, making that government a participant in kleptocracy.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

Berkovic N, 2007.,
Young workers fleeing Sydney, The Australian, December 31, 2007

CIE Report, 2010 [on line]. Source. Available from http://www.metroplansydney.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/pdf/AlternativeGrowthPaths.pdf [accessed 6 March 2012]

Colebatch T., 2011, City's population explosion, The Age, April 1, 2011, http://theage.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/citys-population-explosion-20110331-1cng1.html [Accessed 6 March 2012]

Conacher Travers, 2000., (Conacher Travers Pty Ltd) Environmental baseline study for Ku-ring-gai municipal council, Local government area. http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/resources/documents/Environmental_Baseline_Study1.pdf [accessed 6 March 2012]

Cox W., 2010, New traffic scorecard reinforces density-traffic congestion nexus, Newgeography 03/03/2010 http://www.newgeography.com/content/001444-new-traffic-scorecard-reinforces-density-traffic-congestion-nexus [accessed 8 March 2012]

Easthope H. et al, 2009, The Desirable Apartment Life? City Futures Research Centre, University of NSW, p.14, http://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/cf/research/cityfuturesprojects/higherdensity/DP0223388WorkingPaper5(DesirableApratmentLife).pdf [accessed 6 March 2012]

EMC A survey of nearly 2000 people revealed that in the large capital cities only 7% think Australia needs a larger population while 87% think it needs a smaller or the same population (6% don’t know). Australia’s Population, Essential Report No. 100419, 19 April 2010, Source: Available from http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/?s=Do+you+think+Australia+needs+a+larger+population [accessed 12 March 2012]

Mustafić H., et al, 2012. Main Air Pollutants and Myocardial Infarction, Journal of American Medical Association 2012;307(7):713-721, 15 Feb 2012

Lederborgen F.et al, City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans, Nature 474, 489-501, 23 June 2011

Levi J., 2010, A stack of evidence to show Govt is off-track, North Shore Times, 8 January 2010, http://digitaledition.northshoretimes.com.au/default.aspx?iid=32372&startpage=page0000002#folio=004 [accessed 8 March 2012]

Maas J. et al 2009, Morbidity is related to a green living environment J Epidemiol Community Health published online 15 Oct 2009, Abstract on http://jech.bmj.com/content/63/12/967

Myors P. et al 2005. Multi-Unit Residential Building Energy & Peak Demand Study, Energy News Vol 23 no 4 Dec 05

National Trust, 2011, (The National Trust of Australia (NSW)) Of Form Assembled in the Light -The National Trust’s Submission to the Chairs of the NSW Planning Review, p.30 http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lO60_vJvmao%3D&tabid=105&mid=516 [accessed 6 March 2012]

Note 1 It should be noted that expansion of Sydney does not have a significant impact on food production. Only 7% of food consumed in New South Wales emanates from the Sydney basin and of this only 1/3 is vegetables, the largest proportion is eggs and poultry, cattle and pig slaughter (J. Wilkinson, Agriculture in the Sydney region: historical and current perspectives, NSW Parliament, Feb 2011). Furthermore the area required for housing is small in proportion to agricultural land in the region and it should be relatively easy for development to bypass significant agricultural land that otherwise might be impacted such as the estimated 2025 hectares used for vegetables

Note 2 The median price for a house in Sydney is given as: $651,000 in B.Gora, Sydney house prices worse than London or New York, Sunday Telegraph, 30 May 2010;
And as:
$637,600 (September 2011) in 8th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, Dec 2011, p.41, http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf [Accessed 6 March 2012]

Note 3. A current (March 2012) “back of the envelope” calculation for the cost of a house on the city periphery, unrestrained by artificial shortages, reveals the land cost at $10,000 (from subdivided farmland on the outskirts costing $60,000 per hectare yielding six 600 sq. m lots), services at $90,000, and other costs $20,000 giving a total unimproved cost of about $120,000. Add the cost of building a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom house at $130,000 gives $250,000 for the cost of a home (personal communication)

Note 4. Example: Blog entry; A.Jeffery, Rhodes Peninsula, Sydney overdevelopment. See section “traffic problems”, 08 December 2010, http://sosnsw.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/rhodes-peninsula-sydney-overdevelopment.html [accessed 8 March 2012]

Note 5. A survey has found that one in five New South Wales households was unable to pay an electricity, gas or phone bill on time and seven in ten expect to have to make sacrifices to meet future bills. J.Irvine, Struggle puts squeeze on bill payments (referring to a Wesley Mission Report), Sydney Morning Herald 31/10/2010 http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/struggle-puts-squeeze-on-bill-payments-20101031-178xx.html [accessed 6 March 2012]

NSWDOP, 2005. NSW Department of Planning, 2005, Metropolitan Strategy. City of cities: a plan for Sydney’s future, Source. available from http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/ [accessed 6 March 2012]
NSWDOP, 2008. New South Wales Department of Planning, [on line]. The annual increase of 57,000 people is projected to consist of an average natural increase of 39,000 and net migration of 18,000 (table 4.1, p.17) Source. available from http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/population/pdfs/nsw_state_regional_population_projections_2006_2036_2008release.pdf [accessed 6 March 2012]

NSWDOP, 2010 NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2010. In 2006 as much as 90% of new dwellings were in-fill into existing communities. Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036, Strategic Direction D p.107 Source. Available from http://metroplansydney.nsw.gov.au/Home/MetropolitanPlanForSydney2036.aspx [accessed 6 March 2012]

Troy P. et al,2005, Water Use and the Built Environment: Patterns of Water Consumption in Sydney, Research Paper No. 1, City Futures Research Centre, December 2005

PC, 2011a. A Productivity Commission survey of nearly 16,000 people revealed that 64% of the Sydey community would not like an increased population, 9% would like it and 27% did not know or did not care; Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation:Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments, Productivity Commission Research Report Volume 1, p.28, April 2011; Source. Available from http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/108840/planning-volume1.pdf [accessed 6 March 2012]

PC, 2011b
Productivity Commission Research Report Volume 1, IBID, p xxxvii

Randolph B., 2006, Children in the Compact City; Fairfield as a suburban case study, University of NSW, October 2006

Recsei T., 2011, Blog: Confining children, 10 December 2011, http://sosnsw.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/confining-children.html [accessed 6 March 2012]

Salt B., 2008, Tale of two cities: Why Melbourne thinks it’s a chance to overtake Sydney early this century, (Presentation to Australian Institute of Urban Studies), 29 July 2008

UDIA, 2009 (Urban Development Institute of Australia) The 2009 UDIA State of the Land : National Land Supply Study, p.11

Confining children

The Department of Planning states ad nausea that its high-density policies provide housing choice. But one or the reasons for SOS resisting high-density housing being forced onto communities that do not want it is that this reduces choice for the housing that most people want – family friendly single-residential housing.
SOS has been pointing out for years the tragic consequence of this policy – the regular newspaper reports of child deaths from falling out of apartment windows. With no backyard in which to play and explore, children restricted within four walls are tempted to explore their confines. At last the Department of Planning has recognised this is happening. But instead of solving the problem by allowing the community the type of dwelling they need, the response to these increasing tragedies is to distribute 40,000 posters and brochures to strata owners and tenants in an education campaign to reduce child falls from windows and balconies.
So much for housing choice! We have also been pointing out that mental illness is associated with increasing density. Presumably a Department of Planning brochure on mental illness will be next.

Wholesale theft

The NSW Department of Planning has told councils that special purpose or special use lands such as for schools, hospitals, churches and community centres must be rezoned according to that of their surrounding areas. That mostly means they will be zoned for even more residential. So while densities will increase further, public land will be reduced. Where and how will children be educated and enjoy recreation, the sick be treated and community functions held for existing populations if the land available for these purposes is to be reduced while at the same time yet more people will be housed in the area? We will have massive concentrated population with no public facilities or open space - a recipe for a violence and crime dominated concrete jungle or the totalitarian government of "1984" or "Brave New World".


This is a futher continuation of the Government's crazy high-density policies. It is wholesale theft of our land for the ultimate benefit of developers. Ali Baba's forty thieves have nothing on this crowd.

Rhodes Peninsula, Sydney overdevelopment

AMENDED MASTER PLAN FOR RHODES PENINSULA

ALAN JEFFERY povides a description of how the amenity of Rhodes is being destroyed by senseless overdevelopment as at the end of December 2010.

Rhodes Peninsula continues to be abused by both the State Government and Canada Bay Council. The Master Plan is being massively amended during construction of this residential/commercial/retail development to permit much higher residential densities and over double the height restrictions. This is producing greater developer profits but at substantial cost to the local community and, in particular, the local road infrastructure.

The following is a summary of some of the events and concerns surrounding this development. Whilst it is based on correspondence, documentation and recollections of the author, a resident of Rhodes for 35 years, due to the constantly changing nature of this development over more than a decade, not always to the community’s knowledge, no guarantee can be made that all facts, numbers, etc are absolute accurate.

Background

Rhodes is a small suburb on the southern bank of the Parramatta River slightly more than half way from Sydney to Parramatta. The development site occupies the area of the suburb lying west of the railway line. Part of the proposed development site was badly contaminated by the previous heavy industry usage.

After lengthy “consultation” a decade ago a Master Plan (SREP 29) was approved by the State Government around the end of 2001 for the 0.43 square km site which approved (approximately):

· Commercial area for 2,000 employees (in addition to a further 3,000 employees elsewhere in Rhodes)
· Shopping centre with over 100 shops
· 3,000 residential units for around 7,300 residents

Members of the local community fought hard to limit this development during consultation for the original Master Plan, writing over 40 letters to departments, the Premier, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and meeting with Planning Minister Refshauge, Opposition Leader John Brogdan and Shadow Minister Barry O’Farrell. They also provided submissions to a Parliamentary Inquiry into the development, including a 40 page report into the transport issues. Yet the community concerns were effectively ignored.

Following the approval of the Master Plan, construction began with the shopping centre opening at the end of 2004 and commercial sectors opening progressively and they are now effectively complete. The residential component on the non-contaminated portion of the site commenced early in the project whilst the remaining residences waited for the completion of the remediation of the northern portion of the site. Currently about 1,000 of the original proposed 3,000 units have been built and occupied.

Contamination and remediation of the site

The following is understood to represent the circumstances of the remediation process.

Much of the Rhodes Peninsula site was heavily contaminated primarily by dioxins produced at the on-site Union Carbide factory being incorporated into reclamation landfill. A significant portion of the contaminated site was owned by the State Government which called for expressions of interest (EOI) to remediate the land after which the successful contractor could development the land in accordance with SREP 29. The EOI explicitly prohibited the use of direct thermal desorption (DTD) to remediate the soil. DTD is basically heating the soil in the open to evaporate the contaminants. The contract was awarded in the understanding that remediation would be undertaken using indirect thermal desorption (ITD) which heats the soil in a closed system to contain and collect any toxic gases.

To the best of the author’s knowledge here are just some of the concessions re this site:

1) After awarding the remediation contract, the contractor was subsequently permitted to use a modified form of DTD without a new EOI being issued. A professor from a New York university, with then 18 year’s of world-wide dioxin experience, had previously told a public meeting at Rhodes that DTD was so dangerous that under no circumstances should residents remain in the area if DTD was used; they should definitely move.

2) The remediation extent and standards were significantly reduced after the contract was awarded.

Both of these dramatically reduced the period and cost of remediation and thereby greatly increased developer profit – AFTER the contract was awarded.

The remediation is almost complete so nothing much can be done in this regard although who knows what health concerns may arise in the local community. It should be mentioned that the remediation was stopped for several weeks after it was found the process wasn’t satisfying the required standards, believed to be in regards to the emissions.

Q. Why did the State Government grant such remediation concessions to the developers?


The Amended Master Plan

About September 2009 local residents were advised that Canada Bay Council was exhibiting an amended Master Plan for the site. After apparently ignoring the major concerns of local residents, a few weeks ago Council approved amendments to the Master Plan to permit

· 5,300 units not the original 3,000*, and
· an increase in maximum height from around 10 storeys (in this area) to 25 storeys

* note the original 3,000 approved units had previously been increased to 4,500 units on the basis that the units had more 1 and 2 bedrooms although the number of residents had also been significantly increased. This increase appears to have been somewhat surreptitious as it was almost certainly not accompanied by an amended Master Plan but more likely incorporated into individual DAs.

Q. What was the purpose of the 2-year consultation period and a Parliamentary Inquiry if the Master Plan can be dramatically amended during the construction phase?

The developers, after having been given financial benefits by massive remediation concessions, are now being given even further concessions. Canada Bay Council stated that the changes were needed to satisfy development targets set by the State Government.

Impacts of the Amended Master Plan

Some of the impacts of this development, and the amended Plan in particular, are:

· unacceptable population density (detailed below)
· overwhelming traffic problems (detailed below)
· stress on educational facilities (discussed below)
· overloading of public transport particularly the nearby railway
· massively increased overshadowing of existing developments

Population Density

If around 5,300 units are approved the original population of Rhodes will increase around 16 fold in little over a decade. The final population of around 11,200 people (700 original plus an expected 10,500*) in a suburb as a whole of around 1 square kilometre is equivalent to fitting the world’s population in about 80% of NSW. Yet Rhodes, as a very small suburb, is just not residential development but includes:

Ø a six lane arterial road
Ø a train line with four track potential
Ø a 62 bed aged care hostel
Ø a large church
Ø parkland (almost 10% of the suburb)
Ø existing light industrial use (app 5% of the suburb)
Ø employment for around 5,000 workers
Ø shopping centre with over 100 shops

* whilst the exhibited plan referred to an estimated population of 10,500 residents, the local newspaper report refers to an additional 12,000 residents (see transcript at the end of this document)

Q. How can the State Government believe that a suburb residential density equivalent to fitting the world’s population in 80% of NSW is good planning?

Traffic Problems

Perhaps the major concern with this development, and that which the author is most knowledgeable, is its impact on traffic in the area due to its proximity to Ryde Bridge and the restricted access to the area.

Currently most of the retail and commercial development is complete and occupied but only around 1,000 of the original 3,000 units are occupied. Yet traffic problems are already diabolical. The development is immediately adjacent to Ryde Bridge and traffic is at a standstill throughout most of the morning and evening peaks on this crucial piece of Sydney’s road network.

There are only two access roads to Rhodes:

1. Homebush Bay Drive coming from the south-west which becomes Concord Rd and continues past the site over Ryde Bridge, and
2. The old Concord Rd (south) which comes northward from Strathfield and joins Homebush Bay Drive near the southern boundary of the development.

Hence all traffic visiting or passing through Rhodes has to travel on part of the Homebush Bay Drive and/or its extension along Concord Rd to Ryde Bridge.

Based on the original Transport Management Plan (TMP) adopted by the Government the average delay in Concord Rd at the Homebush Bay Drive intersection will exceed 12 mins (for 2,000 cars an hour) under the 3,000 unit proposal. An analysis of this shows that in just one hour enough petrol will be “wasted” by cars queuing at this one intersection for a car to drive around Australia. Yet with only 1,000 units occupied these delays are already being significantly exceeded. The author recently surveyed the traffic one afternoon on a normal day (no rain, breakdowns or accidents) and cars in Concord Rd were taking over 13 minutes to get through the set of lights at Homebush Bay Drive. Apart from the environmental concerns, additional traffic delays within Rhodes (due to the original 3,000 unit development alone) can be shown to cost the community over $10 million a year in lost time.

Q. How can the environmentally-conscience State and Local Governments consider such a waste of precious fuel resources and the associated CO2 and pollution production acceptable?


The original TMP projected post-development flows on Ryde Bridge are up to 1,900 cars per hour per lane. This means cars have to travel around 1.9 seconds apart; much closer than the RTA recommended 3 seconds and even closer than the 2 seconds which is illegal in many countries (eg New Zealand).

Q. The State Government was repeatedly informed of this fact so how can they condone this unsafe driving practice?

The traffic flow figures in the original 3,000 unit TMP demonstrate that because of the proximity of the development to Ryde Bridge, this development is going to generate traffic volumes equivalent to the modelled increase in traffic arising from around 16 years of background growth i.e. Sydney-wide development. That means this vital piece of infrastructure will have to be augmented or replaced 16 years before previously necessary just because of the original 3,000 unit development; or much more than 16 years if 5,300 units are approved.

Q. How can the State Government justify approving a development with such disproportionate negative impacts on important infrastructure?

The community repeatedly advised the Government that insufficient parking was being provided based on an existing very detailed survey of transport use in the suburb e.g. car use represented over 80% of journeys whilst the Government ideologically assumed 55%. Despite drawing their attention to this survey the Government refused to reference it in the studies and failed to provide sufficient parking. Previously quiet local streets are now parked out by workers who then walk for 15 minutes to their offices.

Educational Facilities

In January 2010 a local newspaper reported that a nearby school principal said all local schools were experiencing capacity problems. During the original Master Plan the matter of inadequate schools was raised by the community which noted that age demographics in a study for the Master Plan demonstrated over 600 school age children would reside in the 3,000 unit development. This fact was not directly disclosed in the study and recollections are that there was never any discussion by government of a new school. It is understood that Council is now, with only 1,000 units occupied, discussing with the Department of Education the possibility of a new primary school in the eastern/older portion of Rhodes.

Q. Why was the community’s call for a school to be incorporated in the new development ignored but now there is talk about a new school to be located outside the development?




Current Situation

Despite significant local opposition, this increased development has been recently approved by Canada Bay Council and it is understood it is awaiting the signature of the Minister for Planning.

According to the local newspaper report that follows, the Mayor said the council had decided to back the plan for high-density living on the former industrial site because it was a better way to meet the State Government's population targets than spreading medium density living across the whole of Canada Bay. Perhaps he should ask the opinion of thousands of drivers who already frequently take over 30 minutes to traverse the 1.6 km long suburb.

Lastly, what precedence does this set for the rest of Sydney? Even the local ALP MP (Angela D’Amore) is so concerned that 20 odd storeys may become the norm around the quiet neighbourhoods in her electorate that she called a well-attended public meeting and continues to fight the increased height restriction although she has said the increased population numbers don’t concern her.

Less than ten years ago, Rhodes was nothing more than an industrial village but the State and Local Governments have decided to make it another Chatswood purely because it is near a railway station and the industrial land was ripe for picking. Both these Governments have chosen to totally ignore the negative impacts of this development whilst such developments are directly or indirectly responsible for most of the woes they face.




Official documentation for the proposed amendment is available on the Canada Bay Council website at

http://www.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/development_and_planning/new_data_planning/planning_-_rhodes_west.html





HIGH DENSITY FUTURE 12,000 more for Rhodes Peninsula

Inner West Courier 26 Oct 2010 Hannah Parkes

A plan to bring 12,000 new residents and seven skyscrapers to the Rhodes Peninsula was adopted by Canada Bay Council last week. The approved Rhodes West Master Plan comes after a 30-day public exhibition period and will allow the previous eight-storey building limit to be increased to allow construction of five towers at 25 storeys, one at 20 storeys and one at 18 storeys.

Mayor Angelo Tsirekas told the meeting the decision to approve the plan was "difficult". "We're in a bit of a dilemma, we'd like to walk away from it, it's not an easy decision," Cr Tsirekas said.

He said the council had decided to back the plan for high-density living on the former industrial site because it was a better way to meet the State Government's population targets than spreading medium density living across the whole of Canada Bay. "Unfortunately we now need to handle this. We need to provide 10,000 new dwellings under the new metro strategy" he said.

He said the council had done its best to provide for the future community including the construction of a $13 million community centre and increased open space.

Drummoyne State Labor MP Angela D'Amore said she would continue to oppose the development. "If developers and council get their way, this will open the door for 25-storey residential towers to be built in anyone of my suburbs," she said.

Addressing the meeting, Rhodes resident Paul Hanly spoke of his concern about the scale, high speed limits and lack of community facilities. Mr Hanly asked the council to set aside $20,000 for a comprehensive recreation plan to provide community activities which would help create a social fabric on the site. "You can't just have a centre. I would like to see organised team sports, dragonboating, stuff the community can get involved in," Mr Hanly said. "What I'm worried about is that all these people will not be able to build a community, activities like this help people meet and get to know each other."

Despite the significant increase in population, the area has yet no plans for new schools or childcare centres to be built. Liberal councillor Helen McCaffrey said while she did not enjoy approving the plan, the focus now had to be on making it as good as it could be. "People wanted more open space and there is going to be a 28 per cent uplift in open space," she said.

Greens councillor Pauline Tyrrell was the only councillor to vote against the plan.

The plan will now be forwarded to the Minister for Planning, Tony Kelly, who will decide whether or not to approve the plan.

Claims about public transport use

The 2008 oil crisis caused a substantial increase in fuel costs which, not surprisingly, at the time resulted in a decrease in car travel and an increase in the use of public transport in the United States. Some have used this occurrence to claim that there is a wide significant move from private to public transport and that this has resulted from policies to force higher densities into cities. The following article by Wendell Cox in New Geography puts this into perspective.

New Geography
The Fifth Estate Clarifies US Driving and Transit Figures

by Wendell Cox 07/27/2010

Late on July 26 (Washington time), The Fifth Estate corrected the attribution by Professor Peter Newman of Curtain University to the effect that driving was down 43% and transit up 65% in the United States. This issue had been the subject of my column on the same morning. It was a simple decimal error (in the reporting) and has now been corrected on the site. Driving is now reported as being down 4.3% and transit up 6.5%. Professor Newman provided slides with the data to Ms. Tina Perinotti, who forwarded them to me.

While the new figures are less inconsistent with the official figures than the former, there are still material inconsistencies.

Driving Trend: Official Data: The slides provided simply refer to the two figures as relating to the past year, without a source or specific period. The 4.3% driving decline is more than double the largest annual decline reported by the official source for such information, the Federal Highway Administration.





Transit Trend: Official Data: We reviewed the data published from the official sources for transit data (the American Public Transportation Association and the Federal Transit Administration) and found no recent annual data indicating a 6.5% increase in ridership (either in boardings or in passenger miles). Much of the transit ridership gain from 2007 to the peak year of 2008 was lost in 2009, according to data posted by APTA in early March




A later first quarter report by APTA indicates further losses. Moreover, as we indicated in our article, the percentage decline in transit use since the peak year of 2008 is many times that of the decline in driving.



Not All Percentages Are the Same: Care must also be used in comparing percentage changes between transit and driving, because so little travel is on transit. For example, a one percent increase in roadway urban travel converts to about one-third of a mile per person per day. A one percent increase in transit use converts to about 30 feet per person per day, about the same distance as walking from one side to the other of the average bedroom and back.



Note: It is possible that the 4.3% driving decline was taken from an
interim Federal Highway Administration report indicating that driving declined 4.3% in March 2008 compared to March 2007 (a monthly comparison, not a year on year comparison). This FHWA report, however, is subject to annual revision based upon the more comprehensive Highway Performance Monitoring System, which in 2009 revised the March 2008 such that the annual change became 2.7%.



(The diagram below from the article referred to illustrates the comparative magnitudes:)

SOS Metropolitan Strategy Review May 2010

METROPOLITAN STRATEGY REVIEW
Comment on discussion paper:
Sydney Greater Metropolitan Region
12 May 2010

1. STRATEGY PROGRESS SO FAR
The planning strategy adopted for the Metropolitan Region will have many long
term and irreversible consequences. The Government’s aims are listed in figure 2
of the Metropolitan Strategy Review 2036 Discussion Paper. By use of the terms
“city of cities” and “urban renewal” the document indicates a predetermined
intention to continue with the strategy of higher-densities in existing communities
(termed “urban consolidation”). This is despite it being readily apparent that this
strategy over nearly two decades has failed to achieve the benchmarks stated.
Concurrent with these policies having been applied more aggressively than
anywhere else in the world and with respect to the aims stated in the discussion
paper it is readily apparent that:
• Liveability has declined. Services have deteriorated, congestion has
increased, and charges have risen.
• Economic competitiveness of New South Wales, now the worst performing
of Australian states, has plummeted as business and people move to other
states.
• Fairness has declined as housing costs have risen to be among the highest
in the developed world. Many, especially the young and the underprivileged,
are now fated to never be able to own their own homes.
• The environment has not been protected as gardens, green space and
heritage within the city are destroyed to make way for unit blocks while the
environmental footprint per person has continued to rise
• Governance has deteriorated as democratic rights of ratepayers are
trampled on by taking away the planning powers of councils. There is now
much dissatisfaction with the manner in which individual planning decisions
are made. The public perception is that development is mainly for the
benefit of developers and politicians with whom they have a close
relationship. The latest example is a proposal for compulsory acquisition of
homes for development purposes.
Reasons for the failure of these high-density policies are documented in appendix
1.

2. SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES
It is vital that the Commonwealth Government organise an objective study to
ascertain the number of people that Australia can sustain. The most suitable body
for such a study is the CSIRO. The New South Wales Government should insist
that such a study be undertaken.
If the population is to increase development should aim at developing towns across
the whole state. This should include:
1. Whole of State Development and repopulation of declining regions
2. A viable decentralisation policy. A mix of incentives and infrastructure provision
can be used to deal with the time and distance issues raised by decentralisation.
These include high-speed rail, top class telecommunications and personal and
company tax incentives.
3. The creation of satellite cities. Each to be as autonomous as practical and
linked by high-speed transport and communications. The planning for each satellite
city would emphasise:
• the creation of green belts
• optimal location from an environment perspective – upstream of agricultural
use
• good transport networks - easy walk/bike/public transport to centre and a
road network designed to facilitate public transport routes
• optimal environmental design – water reuse in city and downstream, thermal
properties, power cables underground, sustainable plantings
4. Judicious expansion of Sydney. This will be better environmentally than
increasing densities. The infrastructure for these greenfields (or near greenfields)
sites should be funded by the State and/or Commonwealth
5. Higher densities, where feasible, for those communities where the majority
through their local council express this wish which will evolve over time. As land
values in the community increase more and more ij that community will be inclined
to want to develop or sell to a developer. A community should have the right to
veto a development proposal unless this can be shown to be undisputedly against
the larger public interest.
Full advantage should be taken of the availability of Federal infrastructure funds.
Method of Implementation
Instead of specifying land where development can take place, the Department of
Planning should specify where development in the State cannot take place. It
should be left to the private sector to initiate and develop new areas with
Government taking a more passive supervisory role. The Department of Planning
should ensure that properly designed user fees, markets and incentives are in
place to optimise market-driven development for the long-term benefit of the wider
community.
The planning and creation of new area developments should be shared between
the Department of Planning and local communities. The role of the Department of
Planning should include:
• Specifying where development cannot take place
• Establishing general principles
• Planning for and establishing major infrastructure
• Dealing with matters of genuine state significance
• Coordinating those matters that cross borders of local communities that
cannot be dealt with efficiently at local level.

District Local Authorities (DLA)
An outline of one possible scheme follows as an example, here for want of a name,
termed “District Local Authorities”.
Developers would prospectively purchase land in suitable unrestricted areas that
comply with the principles of the Department of Planning relating to development.
The developer would apply to the Department for the creation of a “District Local
Authority” for the area. A public hearing before an independent determining
authority such as the Land and Environment Court would be held to determine the
application. The application would include an environmental impact statement.
Hearing submissions should be sought from the Department of Planning, the local
Shire and interested members of the public. Applicant criteria that would have to
be satisfied would include financial capacity, expertise and historical performance.
The determining authority would have to be satisfied that the local community is in
favour of the development.
The developer would subdivide the land. Requirements to be fulfilled would include
such matters as:
• Complying with a state standard statutory minimum local environment plan
and standard development control plan
• Complying with a minimum requirement for internal and external
infrastructure
• Complying with standards relating to sales promotion
• Establishing financial guarantees that could be used to compensate the
subdivided lot purchasers if the development eventually does not go ahead
• Provide sales contracts for purchasers that at least include adequate
standard consumer protection clauses and information.
In addition to statutory minimums for land development, developments would most
likely need to feature desirable facilities such public open space otherwise the plots
ultimately will not sell.
Fixed interest bonds with some State and Commonwealth participation would
finance infrastructure. In the event of competing applications vying for such funds
there should be a tender process with awards being determined by, for example,
the minimum requirement for public funds per residential lot produced.
The developer would write protective covenants for property owners that
• Comply with general principles set out by the Department of Planning
• Specify the particular building and living conditions that will apply to the
particular development
In conjunction with the Department of Planning the developer would create an
owners’ association or a board of directors (which would become the District Local
Authority) to subsequently enforce and modify the initial covenants. In consultation
with the Department, the District Local Authority would determine and enforce all
necessary charges such as rates to repay its portion of the infrastructure bonds and
to provide local facilities and services.
In time such Districts may amalgamate into council areas.

A turning point?

Save Our Suburbs has another article in the prestigious international New Geography publication. Many Australians are most concerned about just how their children and grandchildren will ever be able to afford to buy a house, even with both partners working in good jobs. They will be doomed to be perpetual renters of a box in the sky as the Great Australian Aspiration of owning a family home with a backyard fades for ever from their dreams. The subject of this New Geography article is on how state government high-density policies cause this excessive housing cost.

See http://www.newgeography.com/content/001546-australia-housing-soars-down-under

BNET Interview

On 11 May Save Our Suburbs was interviewed by Phil Dobie from the website BNET. You can listen to the live interview on http://blogs.bnetau.com.au/aussierules/2010/05/12/bona-fide-nimbyism-btalk/

Once on the site, to start listening turn on your computer speaker and click the button with the arrowhead that is above the photograph

Opposition to forced high-density growing

We are faced with a growing population - the result of the increase of the world population and the Commonwealth Government's immigration policy. Whatever we do, there will be plusses and minuses. The high-density advocates claim it is better to cram us in closer together. But research undeniably shows that in Australia high-density is less sustainable than single-residential living. With high-density living greenhouse emissions per person are much more (additional operational energy and embodied energy use far outway any possible transport savings). Housing costs are also much more. We believe that in a continent-sized country there are much better options available such as sensitive greenfield site development, satellite cities and the rejuvenation of declining country regions. There is no necessity to convert our communities into high-rise slums.

Reports from around the world indicate that opposition to forced high-density is growing.

1. The Sydney Morning Herald of 30 June 2009 reports that nearly half of NSW councils have refused to nominate members to the dictatorial planning panels being set up by the Government. See: http://www.smh.com.au/national/councils-turn-up-their-noses-at-new-planning-panels-20090629-d2in.html
Greg Bloomfield of FairGO has an interesting proposal to make on the composition of planning panels. See below.

2. In Victoria, it is apparent that policies are moving away from high-density. See http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/opposition-to-a-bigger-melbourne-smacks-of-cultural-snobbery-20090624-cwpv.html?page=-1
where the Minister of Planning calls planning critics ideologically opposed to growth suburbs "cultural snobs".

3. In Perth the WA Minister of Planning has announced, couched in carefully constructed phrases, that the previous high-density plan is being abandoned and less onerous plans will be implemented. See http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/urban-sprawl-back-in-style--wa-planning-minister-20090624-cw5x.html

4. The Governor of Texas has vetoed a program to create a new government body that would dictatorially impose high-density. He says policies should be based on the desires of the community. See: http://www.newgeography.com/content/00866-smart-growth-bill-vetoed

5. You may have read about the controversy caused by Prince Charles' intervention in a high-rise project in Britain. Some interesting ramifications can be read in http://www.newgeography.com/content/00864-on-our-knees-prince-charles-vs-lord-rogers
The article states "Local people resent more bodies being crammed into an already overcrowded, teeming and increasingly dehumanized London........ Because (the) development offers the highest density, it ticks all the right boxes as far as the planners are concerned. But for residents, looking at results of cramming on their already limited space, 500 new flats squeezed in does not look so good. "

Meanwhile in New South Wales the Government is relentlessly continuing with its devastation of suburbs. Apart from unsustainability these policies result in some of the highest housing costs in the world. I believe this has been the major factor in the collapse of the NSW economy from being 35% of national GDP to the current 30% and for the NSW proportion of national bankruptcies having risen from 25% to 38%.

GREG BLOOMFIELD’S SUGGESTION

Greg (of FairGO, phone 02 9988 3312) suggests that the Joint Regional Planning Panels being set up by the NSW Government to approve regional planning developments and issues shall consist of:

Two state government representatives appointed by the minister
Two local government representatives appointed by vote of the local council
Two community representatives appointed by a vote of the presidents or senior unpaid voluntary officers of each voluntary community organisation with more than 30 registered/paid up members within the local government area and registered as such within the local council area, each of which presidents or officers shall have one vote.

A person shall be disqualified from membership of the panel if that person has any financial interest or is employed by any organisation with any financial interest in real estate or real estate development within the local government area except by virtue of owning or renting their own prime residential home, prime office space or voluntary community organisational premises.

In the event of an equality of votes on the panel the status quo shall prevail, ensuring that any approval is supported by two thirds of the panel.

Sustainable city

It is obvious that many of these academics, architects and planners take the city's existence for granted. They see the city just as a sculpture. They take it's existence for granted and do not seem to understand that a city only exists because of it's people.
If a city is pleasant to live in, functionnal, beautiful, economically successful and offers affordable accomodation people want, then people stay. The city grows and lives on.
If a city is badly managed, unpleasant, offers low economic opportunities and unaffordable housing that does not meet the desires of it's population, then people will go and the city will die.
In such a way, offering accomodation such as high rises that people do not want to live in, is in itself the most unsustainable policy any planner could have for a city, regardless of the environmental impact. If Sydney goes with those policies, people will inevitably move to where their needs can be met. In the past people have left Sydney for the Central Coast, now they are leaving NSW for other states. In an economy more and more global, the alternatives to Sydney are not just in Australia, but also overseas.

Adrien Krebs

ABC Off the Rails

Sadly, the engineering practicalities relating to transport proposals never seem to be considered by commentators. Wendell Cox writes as follows:

ABC’s Background Briefing ran a story on Sunday (14 December) decrying the continued delay in expanding Sydney’s rail system. Regrettably, it was typical of a policy environment that appears to understand neither cities nor urban transport.

The story provided virtually no balance and certainly no perspective. To read it you would get the impression that everyone works in downtown Sydney. It isn’t even close to that. All of downtown Sydney, Haymarket and North Sydney accounts for less than 20 percent of employment in the Sydney area. This means that 80 percent of the commuters work elsewhere. There is virtually nothing that a rail system can do to get these people to work, because not enough of the employment outside the central business district is within walking distance of rail stations, and most trips would require a transfer downtown. That would not be changed by adding a metro in any of Sydney’s corridors. The government appears to have stumbled into wise policy as a result of the exorbitant cost of these systems.

Transport systems need to be chosen based upon their cost effectiveness in achieving public objectives. As regards the economic growth and affluence of the Sydney area or any other area, minimizing travel time does that best. Thus, projects should be chosen on such factors as the cost per reduced delay hour. Regrettably, in Sydney and many other urban areas in the developed world, such considerations take a back seat to romantic affection for rail systems and hefty political donations from those who build the systems and those who anticipated that building them will substantially increase their property values.

Paris

Why, people ask, does Sydney not emulate the density of Paris? Then everyone can use public transport and Sydney's transport problems will be solved.

Yes, it is a delight for tourists to travel around Central Paris.

But they are referring to the part of Paris seen by tourists and town planners. What they see is the old central Paris, built before the advent of motorised transport. Such old cities were dense because they had to be. Walking was the only means of getting around. But as soon as people were freed to travel by faster means, they started moving out of the inner cities. The central city of Paris now has severe congestion, the average vehicle speed is only 20 km per hour. It has more congested streets than Los Angeles. Yet Central Paris has high density living, no freeways and one of the world’s most intensive rail transit systems.

The part of Paris tourists and town planners do not see are the post WW2 housing estates built around Paris which are as dense as any city anywhere but are notorious for poor public transport and high car usage.

The Ville de Paris reached its peak population 80 years ago, and has lost more than 700,000 residents since 1954. At the same time, the suburbs of Paris have accommodated all of the growth in the area.

This trend is not just limited to Paris. Virtually all urban growth in major European cities has been in the suburbs over the past 40 years.

The proportion of public transport journeys in these cities is not significantly different from that of Sydney. Public transport percentage of journeys in Sydney is 10%, in Paris, Vienna and other similar European cities it is 20%, not all that different If we look at worldwide trends in public transport use – they are nearly all down. Hamburg was down 26% in a decade, Copenhagen down 12%. Sydney, in spite of urban consolidation policies has been down 7%. The world average down 13%. Realistically, as soon as people become sufficiently affluent to live in a suburb, they tend to do so.

Thus, contrary to what the high-density advocates would have us believe, the higher densities of European cities do not seem to be doing much for transport. Latest figures for Sydney are even more startling. They show that during the period of imposed urban consolidation, the Sydney public transport share of journeys has decreased even more, down by a whopping 28%. There are a number of reasons for this but a major factor is that jobs are now becoming distributed all over the city. Public transport is only good for going to a central location. 70% of journeys to work in the CBD are by public transport, for the rest of Sydney only 10%. But only 13% of employment is in the CBD.

Average journey time to work increases in dense cities, not the other way around. Sydney travel times now are worse than those in Los Angeles. This is not surprising –In addition to deteriorating public transport Sydney has a shocking road system. Our freeway capacity compared to other cities. Way below that of Hong Kong, Singapore, Barcelona, Athens, Paris, Toronto, Milan and Tokyo

It is geometrically impossible for public transport to go from everywhere to everywhere in most cases. The only city in the world which has a significant majority of jouneys by public transport (80%) is Hong Kong. Hong Kong has a population density of 50,000 per sq km compared to Sydney's 2000. Do we really have to live like that? If so, why?

How to Make the First Home Buyer Grant Work

It is clear that the Rudd government has given housing affordability a prominent place in its agenda. The government’s efforts to reduce infrastructure fees on the fringe of Canberra are surely a step in the right direction, since such fees are, along with urban consolidation land rationing, responsible for destroying housing affordability.

In further pursuit of housing affordability, the Rudd government has announced plans to increase the first home owner grant from $7,000 to $21,000 for new houses. The reviews are not nearly so positive, however. Some experts, including ANZ Bank Chief Economist Saul Eslake see a risk that the program will simply increase house prices. This would, of course, simply neutralize the effectiveness of the first home owner grant.

While there is no disputing the good intentions of the government, Eslake and other critics are probably right. Any infusion of money into the housing market is likely to increase prices, simply because the supply of new housing is so strictly and artificially rationed by severely restricting the release of new housing land. If there is one thing that economics makes clear, it is that rationing leads to higher prices. And, there have been few better examples of that principle of economics in action than the stingy land use policies that are in operation in virtually all of the nation’s major urban areas.

State governments, and in some cases local authorities, have fitted a tight noose around existing urbanization, despite the fact that more than 99 percent of the nation remains rural --- not developed. As a result, new homes are not being built at a sufficient rate and those that are being built are far too costly. For example, in recent years, house construction on the fringe of Sydney has been at 1950’s levels. The problem is that Sydney and the nation have far more households to serve than half a century ago but there has not been enough land made available on which houses can be built. Without the normal market supply of inexpensive new housing on the urban fringe, there is no way for house prices to go on the fringe but up, as the larger first home buyer grant leads to higher prices.

The problem of first home buyer affordability needs to be addressed at its root. The Great Australian Dream was made possible by building housing on cheap urban fringe land. The cost of the land on which the houses were built was little more than its agricultural value plus the cost of providing streets and utility connections (most of that included in the developer’s price). If today’s land use planning policies had been in effect, much of suburban Australia would not have been built, there might not have been a Great Australian Dream and the nation would be less affluent. Affordable new housing on the fringe is beyond reach until law, regulation and policy allow it to be built, Canberra’s money or not.

Probably no nation in the world has been more driven by egalitarianism and the hope for a better life for all than Australia. In that pursuit, generations of Australians have worked hard to better the future for those that follow.

But, more recently, radical land use policies have begun to extinguish this most attractive of Australian values. Restrictive land supply policies such as urban consolidation have made housing so expensive for up-and-coming households that many will never participate in the Great Australian Dream, unless fortunate enough to inherit their homes (how un-Australian can you get?). What is even more troubling is that these radical policies were adopted, without the slightest consideration of their likely longer term social or economic consequences. Indeed, some academic and planning elites scorn the likes of western Sydney from their upper-middle-class perches, unmoved by the reality that places like western Sydney had much to do with making Australia an inclusive nation of hope.

Few reforms could more restore the promise of Australia to younger households and immigrants than to abandon the radicalism that has virtually banned low cost housing on the urban fringe. In such an environment, larger first home buyer grants would also make housing more affordable.

----

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, St. Louis (USA), co-author of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris.

The Tenth Scalp

Save Our Suburbs has been fighting over-development for 9 years. We have challenged the Government to show their high-density policies, which are so devastating to local communities, are to the benefit of the broader public. But they always shrink from the challenge, slinking back into their cushy offices and slamming the doors. Our tenth such antagonist, Minister of Planning, Frank Sartor has bitten the dust. Other now-vanished foes have been:

Andrew Refshauge, Minister of Urban Affairs and Planning
Sue Holliday, Director General of the Department
Craig Knowles, Minister of Urban Affairs and Planning
Di Beamer, Junior Minister of Urban Affairs and Planning
Andrew Cappie-Wood, Deputy Director-General
Jennifer Westacott, Director-General
Evan Jones, Sydney Strategy Administrator
Professor Peter Newman
Professor Ed Blakely
And now:

Frank Sartor, Minister of Planning


As with his predecessors, Frank Sartor, who regularly boasted his doors were always open, steadfastly refused to see me.

Frank Sartor claims he has been “cheated”. We suggest the thousands of Sydneysiders who have been deprived of their heritage, democratic rights and Australian way of life have more right to feel cheated.

Lony history of corruption

In our fight against political donations, I have occasion to mention the recorded case of NSW Premier Robert Askin receiving $15,000 in a brown paper bag in relation to a development proposal. I then encounter raised eyebrows. Many people just do not want to believe this. But it is necessary to fully appreciate how deeply embedded is this practice in NSW.

More on donations is now emerging from Alan Saffron’s biography of his father Abe Saffron in his forthcoming book Gentle Satan. The Sydney Morning Herald reveals that at one stage Abe Saffron was paying Askin (and the police commissioner) $5000 to $10,000 per week. And that was in the money of the 1960s and 1970s. Alan says Askin was totally corrupt. “In his early years as premier Askin would meet Saffron at restaurants at arranged times and speak to him on the phone regularly. But as Saffron came to the attention of law enforcement agencies intermediates were used”. He says Askin was also the recipient of payments via horse races that were fixed as “a courtesy to premier Askin”!

It is noteworthy that 11 developers received knighthoods from Askin.

But our battle against political corruption, started in 1999, is making progress. The report of the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding is out with many worthwhile recommendations. We need to work hard at getting them adopted.

Voice of Community Needed

"FIRST WORD" LETTER
Sydney Morning Herald 21 June 2008

Why planning needs the voice of the community
The passage of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Bill 2008 late last Tuesday night will sound the death of community participation in planning in NSW.

The then premier Neville Wran introduced in 1979 the original Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In the decade before this, Sydneysiders saw the emergence of green bans and the rise of resident action groups. The end result of this activity was the push for planning to change.

Jack Mundey, a former recent chair of the Historic Houses Trust, was instrumental in campaigns in the late 1960s and 1970s in saving The Rocks, Woolloomooloo, Centennial Park and Kellys Bush in Hunters Hill. It was the actions of Mundey and the Builders Labourers Federation - which imposed green bans at the requests of conservationists, residents and community groups - that apparently influenced Wran's legislation.

The original planning legislation was based on consultation, something that is foreign to the current legislation. Consultation on the discussion paper "Improving the NSW Planning System" was limited.

The rights of residents will be eroded so they will not have a say about how their neighbourhood develops. What impact will this have on our streetscape, our heritage and our environment? The end result will inevitably be conflict between neighbours.

The residents in Kogarah municipality are proud of their homes, their streetscape and their suburbs. The mums and dads will only recognise the scope of the legislation when a neighbour attempts to build an inappropriate design next to their property.

Then, Minister Sartor, you'll see the rebirth of community activism across our local communities.

May the ballot boxes of September 13, in the local government elections across NSW, send strong signals in your direction that the legislation is to the detriment of our heritage, our environment and our communities.

Anne Field Kogarah

Inquiry needed

SAVE OUR SUBURBS

MEDIA RELEASE

23 February 2008

Save Our Suburbs demands inquiry into Government Planning Policies

The staggering revelations about developer donations inevitably lead to questions about the NSW Government’s high-density policies (termed “urban consolidation”). The Department of Planning has

never provided credible justification for this policy which provides huge profits for high-rise developers who in turn make large political donations.

It is undeniable and well documented that high-density is detrimental to the public good [1]. Greenhouse gas emissions per person are greater in high-density [2]. The policy overloads infrastructure. Choking traffic congestion and longer travel times result. Sewers overflow, electricity supply is at breaking point and there are chronic water shortages. High-density policies create land shortages that result in unaffordable housing. Concrete, tiles and bitumen replace trees, gardens and public open space. Sustainablility is adversely affected.

Current media coverage reveals the huge donations high-density developers make to the political parties. What is not yet being publicised is the long history the Department of Planning has of working closely with developers. The Department demands that councils submit strategies for high-density (under threat of taking away their planning powers) and developers who subsequently stand to benefit are actively involved in the assessment of these strategies [3]. Under these circumstances, a good example from the top state planning department is not being set for councils. Proposed changes to the planning system, involving state appointed planning panels, are unlikely to improve the situation.

It needs to be questioned why a policy detrimental to the public interest is being forced onto communities, as this policy provides huge profits [4] to organisations that are actively participating in its formulation and implementation and which make massive donations to the major political parties. Save Our Suburbs demands an Upper House inquiry into the motivation for this policy.

Further information: Tony Recsei 02 9487 2061

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See www.sos.org.au

[2] See http://www.acfonline.org.au/custom_atlas/index.html

[3] For example as at 16 November 2000 the Departmernt’s “Residential Strategy Advisory Committee” consisted of:

John Collins (DUAP Assistant Director-General and Chair)

Peter Woods (Mayor of Concord and President of the Local Government Association)

Bruce McDonald (Director of Strategic and Economic Planning, Penrith Council)

Ian Costley (Mirvac Group - standing in for Robert Hamilton, the General Manager)

Neil Bird, (Urban Pacific Ltd)

Peter Lean (Urban Development Institute of Australia).

After this situation was publicly revealed on the ABC Stateline program of 30/03/01 the committee was replaced with a less obvious method of involving developers in the planning process but the overall effect is the same.

[4] In a letter to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning dated 17 November 2000, Ian Costley, Development Director of Mirvac reports on the financial viability of development that would result if a residential strategy submitted by Ku-ring-gai Council were to be accepted by the Department. In this report internal rates of return of up to 128% on Mirvac’s equity investment were considered “not viable”.

Government Inquiries

The NSW Government has announced an inquiry into improving the planing system and has requested public comment. The address to send submissions is given as "Planning Reform".

An SOS member has written to this address as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam, Another point I should have made is my strong objection to your use of the term “reform” when you are putting proposed changes out for public comment on whether they will make things better or worse. By using the term “reform” you are saying the changes will definitely make things better, which implies that you are not going to be paying genuine attention to any public opinions that they will make things worse.

Could you please correct that misuse of English language by changing all your headings to ‘planning changes’?

Please let me know ASAP that you are doing that; and if not, why.

Can lies go on forever?

SOS member Adrien Krebs has done some research on the cost of housing. He writes:

In yesterday's Australian Financial Review (2 January 2008) an article entitled Adelaide Steals Perth's Crown mentions that the median house price in Australia in 2007 was $482 601 and that of a unit was $386 873.
So out of curiosity I did a little research and found the median home (I assume house and unit all included) price for the USA in 2007 was $212 000 USD, which roughly equates to $237 000 AUD.

Not including interest rates, which are slightly higher in Australia, the cash price of a home is DOUBLE in Australia of what it is in the USA, the world's wealthiest nation!!

- Is it that the USA have much more land available than Australia? NO. Mainland US covers 7.8 million km2, when Australia is 7.7 million km2. So reasonably the same size

- Is it that Australia has much more people competing for land? NO. The exact opposite is true with only 20 million people in Australia vs. 300 million in the US!

- Perhaps our Aussie homes are made of silver and gold or diamond bricks? NO. When driving through the Sydney suburbs, I mainly noticed sandstone for old and historic houses and mostly bricks for more modern ones, and a few wooden ones.

- The US must be going through a severe real estate crisis! There has been a lot of news about this, but according to the US Census http://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf the historical record month for Real Estate was April 2007 where the median home price was at $257 000 USD. Still a universe away from our Australian prices.

The American median income is also higher than the Australian one, so I am definitely out of options and can not figure out why a small 500m2 lot of raw land 60 kilometers West of Sydney will sell for the same price as a built house with a garden in the US.

This information is public. When spread accross Australia, lies will not be able to go on forever and people will want answers. What answers will Frank Sartor and our governments provide us with?

Letters published - usurpation of planning powers

Sunday Telegraph.com.au 4 November 07

It is astounding to learn that Landcom, an organisation set up by the New South Wales Government to offer affordable houses on the city fringe, is demanding up to an outrageous $380,000 for newly released housing lots in Helensburgh (“High-rise towers for the aged”, Sunday Telegraph 28 October). Such prices cannot be justified as agricultural land sells for the equivalent of only $6000 per housing lot. Instead of releasing sufficient land to meet demand, Landcom’s role has deteriorated to hoarding land and making housing unaffordable for most people. Those seeking a home are forced to live packed in like chooks in battery cages or to move to another State. No wonder Sydney is now numbered among the world cities with the most unaffordable housing.


North Shore Times 14 November 2007

The shortage of playing fields is yet another result of the Government’s high-density policy which crams more and more people into suburbs designed for low density without upgrading infrastructure (“Hundreds of kids miss cricket every week”, Times November 9). The result is not only children having nowhere to play, but also out-of-control crime, crumbling public transport, overflowing sewers, water shortages, power blackouts and human tragedy in our hospitals.

68 words


DAILY TELEGRAPH 5 December 2007

State Planning Minister Frank Sartor uses the "stripping back to basics" argument to justify more usurpation of planning powers (‘stripping back to basics – but no nudity,’ December 4).

But Australians overwhelmingly don't want to live in high rise, high-density suburbs (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004), they don't want bush land built on (such as at Gwandalan and Summerland Point ) and they want their opinions about the future of their suburbs listened to and not usurped by developer donations to both the Labor and Liberal parties.

Anthony Meaney
Summerland Point

HORNSBY ADVOCATE 20 December 2007

Frank Sartor wants to grab the planing powers of Ku-ring-gai Council in order to make it easier for his Department of Planning to force high-density into the local community.
He pretends this will be of benefit to the wider public.
It will not.
Research in Australia and the United States shows that high-density is less sustainable than single residential dwellings.
Living in units generates more greenhouse gases per head than does living in low density. But Frank Sartor’s motto seems to be:
“Please don’t confuse me with the facts … my mind is made up”.

Tony Recsei
Warrawee