Plans on Track

I never normally pick up an MX magazine.  It is almost universally filled with the very worst kind of "news" - celebrity rubbish, trivia and "reporting" that consists of ripping meaningless stories of the internet.

And as for the letters page - suffice to say that it is the dumbest letters page in Sydney, and THAT is saying something.

The only redeeming feature is the overheard section, which is usually pretty funny.

The only time you'll ever spot anything resembling actual journalism is in relation to transport announcements, which, given that MX is predominantly handed out at stations to consumers, makes sense.

Anyway, when I saw this head line yesterday, I thought I had better grit my teeth and grab a copy.

The story was as follows: 

Now, in fairness, this is an announcement of plans, nothing more. The ALP government was famous for announcing a new project and then, when it became apparent that it was going to be politically inconvenient or merely that it was going to cost money, promptly shelving or cancelling the project.

Some projects were even reannounced over and over, as it the public didn't notice that they were being taken for a ride.

Having said that, the fact that the government kept getting re-elected seemed to suggest that perhaps the public hadn't noticed, but I suppose that's a different conversation.

This announcement, however, shows the government demonstrating foresight and planning.  It appears that there is presently little need for such a link, but it is not inconceivable that there may be such a need in the future.

Sydney Train Map at present

The North West Rail link is going to head more or less North West from Epping Station, which you can see at the point where the red line meets itself just above the middle of the map. It heads right into the heart of the major growth area of Sydney.

The train system as it presently stands is overwhelmingly geared towards getting people to and from the city.  The plans to try and diversify some employment out of the city is not going to work unless people are able to get to these locations other than via the city.

Once the North West Rail Link is operational, the commuters will have a way to get to and from the city.  But as the areas populate people will be wanted to get to Western Sydney. There are growing city centres around Parramatta and Penrith that will need to be serviced.

In the same way, the growing population in the North West will no doubt lead to an explosion of jobs in the area, and the workers who don't already live in the area will need to get there somewhere.

The proposed route will result in a line heading from the last North West Rail Link station to connect up with either Schofields or Riverstone, which can be seen 7 and 8 stations south-east of Richmond, the station in the top left of the map. It will create a sensible and, I have no doubt, very useful route for commuters travelling in that direction.

In fact, if you look at the below map, if would seem silly not to connect the two together in due course. Schofeilds can be see just to the west of the end of the North West Rail Link at Cudgegong Rd.

We do need to keep things in perspective - all that's been done is set aside the land.  The real test will be whether the government releases the land after the first call from a developer suggesting they may pay a little more for this or that block if they released the land.

But it is an important first step towards making sure that our rail system is able to effectively and efficiently move people around this city.  If the city is going to grow, and particularly if the North West is going to accept as many new residents as are presesntly planned, this kind of forward planning is essential.

Here's hoping O'Farrell has the courage to stick to this plan when it actually requires a "price" to be paid.

Developing a Position

The NSW Labor government was a government characterised, rightly or wrongly, by corruption.

That corruption was, to many people, most evident in the field of development. Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was amended in 2005 to allow the government to seize, from local councils, control of applications that were "state significant".

This was widely perceived as being the government ensuring that their large developer donors were looked after - no planning application could be stymied by a shortsighted, selfish local council.

In this context, just about every large development approved under Part 3A was labelled by the media and the public as being a political decision to appease the developer.

Whilst I don't pretend to be an expert in the area, one would expect that many of these developments deserved to be approved on their merits.  Nonetheless, the manner in which they were perceived by the public was a pretty clear indication of the public's opinion of the NSW Labor government.

At its very first meeting, the new Coaltion Cabinet has voted to repeal part 3A.  This appears to be a very clear effort from O'Farrell to show that under him things will change.

The difficulty is that when it was introduced in 2005, O'Farrell and the Opposition supported the amendments that brought part 3A into existence.

Luckily for him, few voters will recall or care that he previously voted another way.

The real difficulty is that, in principle, part 3A was a good law.

There can be little doubt that the provision was used too liberally (to the detriment of Labor) and that the law gave too much power to the Minister to take control of larger matters.

That said, there is also little doubt that there are developments for which the significance to the state mandates that it be dealt with at a higher level.

For this reason, most parties appear to agree that some level of minister oversight or control is necessary.  As Stephen Albin of the Urban Development Institute of Australia said, "Everyone in the debate acknowledges that we need to have a system in place that treats major projects differently from a DA for a new house." 

A spokesman for O'Farrell said "The NSW Liberals and Nationals policy has recognised there will always be a need for a reserve power to deal with genuinely state-significant developments, but that such a power must be exercised transparently with clear guidelines and clear public accountability

Having now repealed Part 3A, it is likely that when O'Farrell (inevitably) introduces an amendment to allow some upper-level oversight and control he will be subject to vicious attack from opponents.

The solution may be to allow Part 3A type developments, but only in a open transparent way.  This could be achieved by long and thorough consultation processes - processes that do, from time to time, lead to rejection of applications so that the public perceives that their protests have some effect.

This is not radically different from the system under the previous government. But given that O'Farrell will be given the benefit of the doubt for at least a period of time, it may be the political solution.

The donation reform that he has promised will also assist to dispel accusations of being bound to the donations from developers, especially if they forbid any large donations and publicly fund election campaigns.

But no matter what O'Farrell does, every large development will upset some people, and will therefore be the subject of accusation.  How he deals with these accusations may well be the first real test of his leadership and ability to win the media debate.