How the development industry rules the roost and is probably only second in terms of influence to the oil and gas industry.
The NSW government is looking increasingly fragile after losing two ministers. A little shift sideways with the planning minister and we’d be all so much better off – including the property and development industry.
By the time you read this we will probably have eyes on “the letter” – a resignation minister by building commissioner David Chandler – that many suspect pushed fair trading minister Eleni Petinos over the edge of political infinity. (Of course in politics there are all sorts of gravity defying forces at work, so can never be sure of that.)
Did Chandler jump as a protest against attempts to force his hand on removing stop work orders on a particular company or other companies? Or did he jump because… not sure what that alternative could be, except the more nebulous concept that he was mighty pissed off about something.
That the letter was sudden and unexpected is an understatement. The man was firing on all 12 cylinders and had just extended his contract.
Certainly, the premier Dominic Perrottet (who’s facing an election on 25 May next year), betrayed his discomfort when questioned about the circumstances of building commissioner David Chandler’s resignation letter.
How murky indeed is the world of politics and influence. We know how powerful industry cabals can get with even a cursory glance at the fossil fuel industry; but in recent times the suspicion that the property development industry runs a close second is becoming an ever bigger reality.
Not just Chandler and his efforts to clean up shoddy building work that can destroy an individual or family’s life, with no protection by law, and now entire communities and future home buyers.
For instance, the ditching of the Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (D&P SEPP) by a newly installed planning minister Anthony Roberts in early April, well before he could possibly have grasped both sides of what was proposed.
It’s the other side of the same coin tossed by Chandler. The shelving by the inordinate power of “some developers” and “some industry lobbyists” of quite modest attempts to improve the liveability and health outcomes of people living in vulnerable new suburbs and estates. Attempts to mitigate heat island, amenity, walkability and so on.
The status quo is to maximise yield, or the number of housing units that can be extracted from a subdivision, with no regard for biodiversity, urban canopy cover and so on.
In doing so, NSW Planning Minister Anthony Roberts showed that his ears belonged only to the development industry. And that he is blind to the superior qualifications of his predecessor Rob Stokes and to vast input from local governments, professionals and community non-government organisations at scale over two years.
At huge cost.
Exactly how big this cost should be revealed at the budget estimates committee on 29 August.
According to the truckload of documents now released to the public relating to the planning policy (that we renamed SEPP-gate all too presciently a few moons ago), our suspicions and those of everyone else were sadly corroborated.
The property industry has enormous influence over this state government, and many others, we suspect. Besides, there is vast historical precedent for property owners running governments: remember only landowners in many past jurisdictions were afforded the privilege of voting.
What’s new now is that we can see exactly how this plays out.
The documents, revealed through parliamentary motion in the NSW Legislative Council, show in detail who has the ear of government and who does not. What is almost as powerful as what is revealed, is what is not revealed.
There are letters, responses, acknowledgments and meetings set up to deal with the developers’ concerns but none by the minister to request the other side of the story – from the two years of public/professional/local government consultation.
As Total Environment Centre executive director Jeff Angel says, the documents prove that there is a willing ear for industry with ready access made for developers and their representatives, and that due process of public consultation was ignored.
Interesting to note the Government Architect Abbie Galvin warns against this: “…taking our eye off the ball with things that impact climate, urban heat and basic amenity standards for new development doesn’t make sense as it should be helping housing supply, approval speed and flooding (long term) as opposed to hindering.”
She advised placing the SEPP on hold for a while.
“I just worry that if we totally stop, all the knowledge and continuity will be lost and hard to pick up again. Given the $ investment so far has been huge.”
But instead we have the king of the cheap apartments castle, Meriton boss Harry Triguboff, sending in his dictates to the government a few months ago telling the planning minister no one he knew had asked for changes to the state environmental planning policy. So why on earth do it?
In fact, if the minister wanted the developers to spend more money, he was happy to spend it on parking. His buyers wanted more car parking. He was happy to do that.
Sadly this is so short sighted of Triguboff and his pals. The world’s economists have worked out that half of global GDP comes from the natural environment. Property is the most needy of all in its demands on nature to supply its raw materials, and the places on which to build its product. You’d think it would be Harry who glues his hands to the road in front of the bulldozers and demands the property lobby starts protecting his supply and delivery chain by protecting the environment.
Harry’s missive is just a few lines in an email.
There are a few more from Tom Forrest, chief executive of the Urban Taskforce.
Weigh these few emails up against the weight of submissions from the community. Given it’s the community – we the people (taxpayers) – who will bear the cost of what the developers do.
Bear with us a bit here.
Tom Forrest is indignant and fiery in his total rejection of the Deloitte work around the SEPP that said that for every $1 spent would yield $1.40 of benefit.
How dare they, he says, flagging he would launch his own Government Information Public Access (GIPA) to request details of the maths.
It’s the developer who pays that dollar, so where is the benefit to them? He asks indignantly in the email.
But the truth of the matter is that the developer DOES NOT pay.
Developers pass on all costs to the consumer… the banks will not do business, or embark on any development unless the developer can prove they get a nice fat margin of returns.
You’d expect this. Otherwise the developer might go broke and the financier won’t get their money back. They have to provision for any number of economic and geopolitical shocks – and now climate shocks – that might prevail between extending the loan and getting their money back maybe three or four years after signing the agreement.
Ask Nightingale Housing founder Jeremy McLeod in the early days of his radical housing model that aimed to be highly sustainable, affordable and beautiful, when he said he would cap developer profit at 15 per cent. All transparently revealed to stakeholders (in fact Nightingale returned a cheque of around $100,000 back to the buyers at one point because it was part of a contingency fund that was not used).
The point of this story is that McLeod struggled enormously to find a banker who would fund such a low profit margin. It nearly brought the whole model unstuck.
So if the cost of the SEPP to provide liveable communities that don’t flood falls on the cost of the end product it is NOT the developer who pays.
Those who pay are the end buyer and the landowner. This is because feasibility factors in all costs before the first sod is turned. In fact, before the land is purchased.
Think of the developer as a kind of conduit to the end product. They need to get all their sums right or they will go belly up.
So no, they will not pay for the SEPP. We all will… as we will pay for failed, shoddy development. One way or another.
So, Minister Roberts, this is why we need all of us to be part of this process of collaboration.
You’re new to the job, so we will overlook the hoodwinking that all ministers must deal with, and we kind of regret we said you should be sacked. We can change our minds here if you can show us that you can change your mind when the facts change.
First thing would be to listen to everyone when you make a big decision.
The SEPP is not dead and buried. You can bring it back. You can help educate Harry T and mob that he can be a good citizen of the world. We think that in his heart he’d probably like to leave a legacy of good affordable development. Maybe even be the subject of a heroic statue that the people might erect in his honour as villages used to do in honour of the town founder.
He might like to think he can extend his pioneering spirit to do what’s good for the people, a collaborative win-win result that takes account of our now common enemy: a hostile climate that is angry as hell with us all and intends to destroy us if we don’t behave.
Surely Mr Roberts, Harry and all of Tom Forrest’s members want to be loved and honoured.
They do actually have a chance to leave a wonderful legacy.
You too.
Have a chat with Jeremy McLeod. He’ll help.