The anticipated rubber-stamping by the NSW Planning Panel of a modern pub and casino in the historic enclave of Kurrajong Heights - despite 373 local objections and a unanimous council vote against it - is a glaring testament to a flawed system. This scenario underscores the pressing need to overhaul a planning process that not only sidelines community input but also tramples on local democracy, all while appearing to sideline local planning regulations.

In 2017, the NSW Government, in its infinite wisdom, transferred decision-making authority on most development applications from elected local councillors to so-called independent Local Planning Panels (LPPs). This move, ostensibly aimed at enhancing transparency and reducing conflicts of interest, has effectively muzzled community influence over local developments. Councillors, directly accountable to residents, have been replaced by panels often populated with individuals who may not even reside in the area and lack any semblance of accountability to its inhabitants. Notably, the majority of panel members are appointed by the Minister for Planning, raising more questions than answers about the panels' purported independence.

The Kurrajong Heights debacle epitomizes this disconnect. Despite overwhelming community opposition, the Planning Panel appears poised to greenlight the project. This decision not only dismisses the community's vehement opposition to the ludicrous proposition of a second pub and gambling venue in a small historic village but also begs the question: why do local planning regulations seem irrelevant in this case? One might wonder, who is this process truly designed to serve?

Local resident and former natural resource and interim bushfire management officer for the City of Parramatta Council, Nicola Truscot, recently lambasted the proposal for its glaring omissions and inaccuracies. In a scathing address to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, she highlighted the absence of an ecological impact assessment, despite potential effects on habitats for up to 23 endangered species in the area. The vegetation classification was erroneously labeled, leading to a perilous underestimation of bushfire hazards. Moreover, the Social Impact Assessment and Statement of Environmental Effects conveniently failed to mention the incompatible land use (pub/casino) due to its proximity to St David’s Church. More troubling is that both assessments were prepared by Balma Projects Pty Ltd, the very company seeking approval for the project. The irony is, the project may never be built and is likely just a profiteering exercise to inflate the land's value for the developer, in this case, Bashir Merhi. A similar charade is unfolding not far away at his father's project, Islands Oasis.

Critics argue that the current system is a parody of democracy. Local Government NSW has criticised the panels, stating that while councils are accountable to the community, panels are not, and there is no accountability akin to the ballot box. Additionally, the NSW Government's stranglehold over planning panels, despite dubbing them 'local,' has been viewed as deceptive, with local representatives impotent to oppose developments that the community vehemently rejects unless they align with the state government's rigid rules.

The erosion of local democratic processes in planning decisions is a disconcerting trend that demands immediate attention. Restoring the authority of elected local councillors and ensuring genuine community consultation are essential steps toward a more democratic and accountable planning system. The current model, as evidenced by the Kurrajong Heights fiasco, is fundamentally broken and in dire need of reform.

Editor

Samantha Magnusson