the review of the planning system in nsw...committee for sydney: response of the committee for...

Committee for Sydney: Response of the Committee for Sydney to the NSW Independent Local Government Review Panel

Response of the Committee for Sydney to

the NSW Independent Local Government Review

Panel

September 2012


Contents 1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 3

We welcome the review and the review of planning ........................................................................ 3

Towards stronger metropolitan management .................................................................................. 4

We believe subregional structures can: ........................................................................................... 4

Subregions and new metropolitan dialogue ..................................................................................... 5

Community support for reform and growth: Committee Action ........................................................ 5

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6

The Committee for Sydney ............................................................................................................... 6

Governance reform - vital ................................................................................................................. 6

Improving governance - core to delivering our priorities .................................................................. 7

One among many supporters of reform ........................................................................................... 8

We welcome the review ................................................................................................................... 9

First step towards stronger metropolitan management .................................................................... 9

Joining up the NSW reviews on local government, planning, infrastructure funding and delivery – at a subregional level ........................................................................................................... 10

3. The Sydney challenges ............................................................................................... 11

Challenges to be met ..................................................................................................................... 11

4. The opportunity: transforming Sydney governance, delivery – and engagement with communities ........................................................................................................ 12

From governance problems to solutions ........................................................................................ 12

A vision for transformed local government ..................................................................................... 12

Local government reorganisation: the new norm ........................................................................... 13

Sydney must not get left behind ..................................................................................................... 13

Beyond local government reform: transforming metropolitan management .................................. 14

Subregional structures and planning .............................................................................................. 14

Subregional structures can: ............................................................................................................ 15

The boundaries of sub regions ....................................................................................................... 16

Link-up the subregions? ................................................................................................................. 16

Local boards and new ways of communicating, sharing information and enabling creative community engagement ....................................................................................................... 16

Virtual Sydney: towards a metropolitan voice and dialogue........................................................... 17

Gaining community support for reform and growth: Action by the Committee for Sydney ............ 17

Conclusion: ‘What ‘top 5’ changes should be made to local government to help meet your community’s future challenge?’: Key Question 3 ................................................................. 18


1. Executive Summary

The Committee for Sydney is an independent forum shaping public policy for Greater Sydney. We

include members from the private, public and not for profit sectors.

One of the Committee’s top priorities is to promote improvements to governance for Sydney. As such

we commend the government for embarking on the current review of local government.

‘What are the best aspects of NSW local government in its current form?’: Key Question 1

Local governments at their best display two essential characteristics:

the appetite for strategic leadership, partnership-building and profound community

engagement

a commitment to develop the economy of their area, embrace population growth and meet the

housing need of their existing and future community

Our analysis is that the fragmented nature and small scale of local councils in Sydney and the

consequent lack of resources, skills, capacity or scale of operation required, prevent even the best

from achieving what they aspire to for their communities and from dealing with the acute challenges

facing them. The fragmentation of local government, and the lack of effective metropolitan

management by state governments over a long period, in our view have resulted in housing

productivity and economic growth falling well behind other Australian cities.

‘What challenges will your community have to meet over the next 25 years?’: Key Question 2

managing the sustainable growth of Sydney and the balance between West and East as the

population goes to 6 million

meeting rising demands from the public for improved services in an era of stretched budgets

overcoming problems of housing supply and affordability

maximising Sydney’s competitiveness

exploiting the full economic opportunities offered beyond existing local government

boundaries in our global city

achieving all this in the most environmentally efficient manner

We welcome the review and the review of planning

Together they can lead to

more sustainable, less parochial local government

substantive reform of the way in which Sydney is managed; with better alignment of cross

government planning and interventions

greater clarity as to the roles and duties of local government in relation to state government

and its agencies


better management and delivery of sustainable growth

more engaged and empowered communities and

theresumption of the economic momentum of Sydney, the key driver of the state’s wealth.

Towards stronger metropolitan management

The need for a big city model of metropolitan city governance is a priority for the Committee.

Successful cities that are improving their productivity, delivering on their growth agendas, delivering

infrastructure and engaging communities have achieved greater local government consolidation such

as Brisbane, Auckland and indeed London. The opportunity should be taken via the planning review

and local government review to innovate and to improve cross government alignment and better

metropolitan management by creating a subregional scale of government which can engage

effectively with state government and its agencies. These subregions could form a transitional basis

for the emergence of a more formal subregionalisation of local government and indeed cross

government structures in Sydney.While arguments will continue about whether Sydney is appropriate

for a one-city, one government approach like Brisbane, consideration should be given to rationalise

Sydney’s current 43 local governmentstowards perhaps ten subregions or ‘regional councils’.

We also add immediately that we are attracted to the Auckland reform of balancing the reduction in

councils from 7 to 1 with the creation of 21 local boards involving communities. We also stress the

need and opportunity in the digital era to use new digital platforms and technologies not just to

improve service design and delivery but to engage residents as never before in plan-making, policy

development, delivery and indeed governance. A new more empowered community and strengthened

localism can balance the creation of more strategic and bigger scale local government.

We stress that our vision, informed by the COAG Reform Council review of planning systems, is also

of reformed state government coordination and management of Greater Sydney.

We believe subregional structures can:

place greater emphasis on delivering economic objectives and on the State or City-significant

infrastructure and development projects which underpin productivity

rise above some of the groundless NIMBYism which has inhibited necessary housing

development

help integrate land-use and infrastructure planning – offering the ability to operate and plan

across boundaries and deliver a more integrated approach to infrastructure and land-use

planning.

provide opportunities to develop innovative approaches to funding infrastructure

enable community involvement at a more strategic level

develop strategic implementation plans to delivery subregional elements of the metropolitan

plan

build subregional capacity to deliver growth and urban renewal linked to investment in

infrastructure that crosses local authority boundaries for example Parramatta Road

promote resource sharing and build on current subregional best practice to improve the

efficiency, affordability and sustainability of service provision across Sydney eg. library

services, waste disposal, water, sewerage, street lighting and road maintenance


attract better resourcing of local government

improve financial stability by reducing costs and better management

develop stronger leadership – smaller number of better paid politicians and chief executives

rebuild confidence in local government

create scale and capacity to have a more equal partnership and dialogue with state agencies

–planning, transport, finance/treasury, Department of Premier and Cabinet and others

Whatever emerges from the review needs to recognise the importance of Western Sydney to Sydney

and ensure that it has the appropriate planning and delivery structures to secure the step change in

coordination, investment, services and infrastructure needed.

Subregions and new metropolitan dialogue

At the same time consideration should also be given to linking the new subregional structures in an

informal pan Sydney framework. A de facto ‘Sydney Senate’ made up of the chairs or leaders of

subregions, enabling a civic and professional planning dialogue to take place for Greater Sydney

without adding to tiers or costs. The new subregional structures can provide the platforms for this

dialogue using new digital and social media. More Sydney citizens and more diverse participants can

be part of this dialogue than have ever been involved before. And by linking communities first through

their subregional structures and then by linking those subregions on online platforms too, we can

create what has rarely if ever existed before and urgently needs to: an all of Sydney dialogue about

our city’s development and future.

Community support for reform and growth: Committee Action

The Committee for Sydney makes a commitment to use our own resources and initiatives to provide

the necessary thought leadership, expertise and public endorsement to help government win

community buy-in to the linked planning and governance reforms and the ‘managing growth’ agenda

of which they are part. We will be an advocate for subregional structures - and better management of

metropolitan Sydney by the state government and its agencies.

‘What ‘top 5’ changes should be made to local government to help meet your community’s future challenge?’: Key Question 3

fewer, more strategic and well-resourced councils in a decisive move to subregional planning,

infrastructure,delivery and governance structures in Sydney

to work with better coordinated state government departments tasked to work together across

government and with local government in subregional contexts

exploration of how other jurisdictions have combined local government consolidation with

localism in the form of community boards

The use of innovative digital platforms and other relevant approaches empower communities

and involve and engage more residents in plan-making, policy development, service design

and delivery and deliberative democracy

To explore ways in which local government reorganisation, subregional structures, improved

metropolitan management of Sydney and new digital tools can be used to create more of a

metropolitan conversation, identity and collaborative framework for Greater Sydney.


2. Introduction

The Committee for Sydney

The Committee is an independent forum of decision makers taking a leading role in shaping public

policy and promoting initiatives to ensure a sustainable and prosperous future for the whole of

Sydney. Our aim is the enhancement of the economic, social, cultural and environmental conditions

that make Sydney a competitive and creative global city. We include members from the private, public

and not for profit sectors all keen to play their part is making Sydney a more productive and liveable

city.

The Committee is keen to work with Government to have a positive impact on the city. We will help to

shape policy and support the implementation of initiatives which make a difference to the City and

protect our global competitiveness.

Governance reform - vital

One of the Committee’s top priorities is to promote improvements to governance for Sydney. As such

we commend government for embarking on the current review of local government and stress the

importance of integrating it with the reform of the planning system, further innovation in

developingurban renewal delivery vehicles for Sydney and options for funding new infrastructure - all

areas where the government is taking positive action and where the Committee is currently

contributing to the development of new approaches. We are keen to contribute to the broadly based

review process the government is leading and share the experience and expertise of our members.

We add: amid a legitimate national debate about productivity, the Committee believes that significant

local government reform in and for Australia’s global city is a vital micro economic issue and a priority

for the state if not the nation. Sydney is the driver of the state’s economy and thus reform of is local

government and overall governance is of special importance. The government is to be commended

for initiating this independent review and we look forward to working with the review and the

government to secure necessary change in our capital city.

‘What are the best aspects of NSW local government in its current form?’: Key Question 1

In answering this Key QuestioninStrengthening Your Community, the Committee, whose critique is

not intended as a criticism of any individual council, that the best in local government display two

essential characteristics:

the appetite for strategic leadership,partnership-building and profound community engagement

a commitment to develop the economy of their area, embrace population growth and meet the

housing need of their existing and future community

Our analysis is that the fragmented nature and small scale of local councils in Sydney and the

consequent lack of resources,skills, capacity or scale of operation required, prevent even the best

from achieving what they aspire to for their communities and from dealing with the acute challenges

facing them.


‘What challenges will your community have to meet over the next 25 years?’: Key Question 2

We see the challenges as needing to be met by local government, state government and indeed the community together over the 25 years as:

managing the sustainable growth of Sydney and the balance between West and East as the

population goes to 6 million



maximising Sydney’s competitiveness

exploiting the full economic opportunities offered beyond existing local government boundaries in

our global city

achieving all this in the most environmentally efficient manner.

Overcoming thecurrent fragmentation so as to deal effectively with such challenges and opportunities

is in our view vital. ‘Better fewer but better – and bigger’ should be the guiding principle of local

government reform, combined with a renewed, innovative and indeed technologically enabled process

of community participation. This is so as to ensure local concerns are properly embraced in and

communities are empowered in the new framework of strategic governance for Sydney we see at the

subregional and metropolitan scale.

Improving governance - core to delivering our priorities

The Committee for Sydney’s priorities for 2012 include:

1. Planning reform, housing and city governance: towards a balanced city

2. An integrated transport network for a global city

3. Promoting Sydney as a global hub for financial and professional services, and as a regional

centre for the ‘Asian 21st century’

4. The liveable and loveable city: the cultural identity and visitor economy offer of Sydney

Whilst improving governance is specifically mentioned in our first priority it is an essential ingredient to

delivering on all 4 Committee priorities.

City governance and local government reform arekey to maintaining Sydney’s competitiveness

In our major benchmarking report, Global Sydney: Challenges and Opportunities for a Competitive

Global City (2010), the Committee identified the key drivers of international city competitiveness. The

key message of the report was that improving governance was at the heart of maintaining Sydney’s

competitiveness.

Previous submissions to the NSW government – improving governance was core

We have stressed in all our previous submissions to NSW government reviews of key policy areas

including transport, planning reform, and a metropolitan plan for Sydney, that Sydney’s fragmented

local government and lack of a structure and voice at the Metropolitan level have led to a decision-

making deficit and governance gap.


Our submissions to the planning review refer to a ‘once in a generation opportunity’ to get planning

and governance right. We refer to planning and governance as ‘two sides of the same coin’. So much

so that we supply our responses to the local government review panel and the planning Green Paper

together (see Appendix 1 of this submission).

A barrier to delivering previous plans

Both the fragmented local government and the lack of structure and a voice for Greater Sydney have

also led in our view to the failure to get proper buy-in and delivery of previous plans for Metropolitan

Sydneyand inhibited successful transport, infrastructure and economic planning and implementation.

This judgement has been informed by the recent COAG Reform Council Review of Capital Cities

Planning Systems which showed the key issue for Sydney was the gap between strategic thinking

and delivery. We agree. Governance and capacity issues are at the heart of this gap and are both

linked.

The Committee highlighted the importance of a review of governance and local government reform in

our paper ‘The need for new urban renewal vehicles’ which outlined the need for a new approach to

delivery and powers required by a new organisation to make a difference. As we put it simply in that

report: any new Metropolitan plans for Sydney will replicate the failure to implement of previous

strategic planning unless delivery structures and governance are available to implement it.

Adverse impact on delivery and Sydney’s reputation

The ongoing failure to address the fragmentation of local government, and the lack of effective

metropolitan management by state government over a long period, are having an impact on Sydney’s

ability to deliver growth with a consequent damage to business confidence in and the promotion of

Sydney. The city has for a decade now delivered half the homes needed and fallen well behind the

housing productivity and economic growth of other Australian cities – and not just the resource based

economies. At the same time, Sydney’s contribution to Australian wealth has fallen from just under

27% at the end of the last century to around 17% at the beginning of this decade. We believe

governance challenges contribute to this erosion.

One among many supporters of reform

The Committee for Sydney is clearly not alone in identifying governance as a problem. The problem

of fragmented government for Sydney has been identified as a key issue holding back delivery in

Sydney by a range of representative and authoritative bodies such as the Sydney Business Chamber,

the Australian Property Council, Urban Taskforce, COAG Reform Council and Planning Institute of

Australia.The Business Chamber’s 2007 report on ‘Who’s Governing Sydney? ‘stressed the need for

consolidated city structures and in terms of the international comparisons of cities with which Sydney

is in competition for investment, identified the key problem of a fragmented local government

structure, the relative absence here of city-wide governance and the existence of a rather centralized

and under-coordinated state government apparatus finding the challenge of effective metropolitan

management of Sydney demanding.

Strategic minded local councils, already involved in sharing resources across boundary and in

subregional collaborations,have also identified the opportunities from a more scaled-up operation and

critical mass. They know the weaknesses of there being too many councils, with outdated boundaries,

lacking the capacity to shape markets or indeed engage as fully as they would like in being a partner

with state government and its diverse, difficult to coordinate, agencies and departments in the task of

metropolitan management. They are advocates of change too.


We welcome the review

It is in this context that we welcome this review of local government and the related review into the

planning system which, we think, together provide the prospect of:

More sustainable, less parochial local government

substantive reform of the way in which Sydney is managed; with better alignment of cross

government planning and interventions

greater clarity as to the roles and duties of local government in relation to state government and

its agencies

better management and delivery of sustainable growth

more engaged and empowered communities

theresumption of the economic momentum of Sydney, the key driver of the state’s wealth.

We repeat what we have said in other submissions and discussion with relevant government

departments. This is a once in a generation opportunity to get this right - to ensure that we address

the deficit in decision making and delivery in Sydney and ensure that we have the right governance

structures in place to support sustainable growth in the right places. Above all, we need big city

thinking required to retain Sydney’s productivity and liveability.

First step towards stronger metropolitan management

The need for a big city model of metropolitan city governance is a priority for the Committee.

Successful cities that are improving their productivity, delivering on their growth agendas, delivering

infrastructure and engaging communities have achieved greater local government consolidation such

as Brisbane, Auckland and indeed London. In Auckland, consolidation has been achieved at the

same time as local community participation has been enhanced through the creation of local boards:

a potential model for Sydney.

Although the Committee for Sydney believes that reform ultimately needs to embrace a more

metropolitan scale governance, the opportunity should be taken via the planning review and local

government review to innovate and identify new ways of ensuring cross-tier or multi-government

alignment.The reviews can be a catalyst to improve cross government alignment and better

metropolitan management by creating a subregional scale of government which can effectively

engage with state government and its agencies.Models from other jurisdictions show the path which

we need to take in Sydney towards better alignment between local and state government bodies,

whether it’s:

the Vancouver approach to the coordination of multi-layered governance,

the French ‘Contrat de Ville’ locking in central government to a shared strategy with city

government around delivering key infrastructure

the exciting collaboration between South east Queensland local governments (and the formal post

of ‘coordinator general’ introduced by the Queensland Government)

the unified cross tier/agency and inclusive approach to plan-making and infrastructure provision

for Adelaide.

Given the size of Sydney we believe versions of these cross government approaches and structures

would work well over time at a subregional level.


Joining up the NSW reviews on local government, planning, infrastructure funding and delivery – at a subregional level

Planning is a major part of local government activity particularly for councils in high growth areas.So it

is essential that planning reform and the local government review be considered and developed in

tandem. With the NSW Planning Reform Green Paper there is an exciting opportunity identified to

improve planning outcomes and delivery of infrastructure by overcoming local government

fragmentation and problems with state metropolitan management by creating new subregions. These

could be a significant step forward in terms of delivering stronger strategic plans,creating new

capacity to deliver projects and improving the efficiency of service delivery.

These structures in our view will have a significantly beneficial impact on planning and infrastructure

provision and could form a transitional basis for the emergence of a more formal subregionalisation of

local government and indeed cross government structures in Sydney.

Proposal for the new ‘Urban Growth’ delivery vehicle should also be developed with such local

government and subregional reform in mind. The proposed new subregional infrastructure delivery

planning offers both an opportunity to plan and integrate infrastructure to facilitate development and

housing but also to fund and deliver it. A new approach to funding infrastructure at a subregional level

could be promoted via subregional development levies, special time limited rating regimes for

designated areas or value capture approaches. The local government review should explore these

possibilities.


3. The Sydney challenges

Challenges to be met

As we have indicated, in our view,the key challenges which the communities,local government and

state government will collectively ‘have to meet over the next 25 years‘ (Key Question 2) in and for

Sydney are:

managing the sustainable growth of Sydney and the balance of jobs, homes and transport

between West and East as the population goes to 6 million



maximising Sydney’s competitiveness and exploiting the full economic opportunities offered

beyond existing local government boundaries in our global city

achieving all this in the most environmentally efficient manner

Underpinning and we think exacerbating these challenges are a fragmented and under-powered local

government system and a failure of metropolitan management by state governments. These are

linked. Without councils with scale and resources state government and its agencies have had

difficulty in partnering effectively with local government and delivering locally.Similarly smaller

councils find the task of upwardly managing state government agencies beyond their capacity. The

result pleases know one and falls short of meeting Sydney’s challenges.

Meeting the challenges facing Australian cities: the COAG Principles

Informing our critique is work by COAG on the key principles for city planning highlighted in The State

of Australian Cities Report (2010). We believe they are relevant to this review as they identify the

challenges that cities need to address, and that only cities working at the right scale and collaboration

can meet:

i. Population growth and meeting diverse housing needs

ii. Demographic change

iii. Transport congestion

iv. Opportunities for appropriate densification and transport oriented development

v. Affordability of city living

vi. Infrastructure provision

vii. Sustainability/climate change

viii. Productivity growth


4. The opportunity: transforming Sydney governance, delivery – and engagement with communities

From governance problems to solutions

Although academic arguments continue as to precise benefits of amalgamation and appropriate scale

and size for councils, for the Committee,with members from public, private and not for profit sectors

across Greater Sydney, there is little doubt that Sydney’s problems of the last decade – the inability to

deliver necessary infrastructure to enable vital housing and commercial development and the inability

to make Big City strategic decisions to manage the sustainable growth of the city and its population –

have been exacerbated by two linked failures of governance.

On the one hand, that of fragmented and small scale local government with boundaries which don’t fit

labour markets, key transit corridors or strategic need, often lacking resources, revenue, skills and

capacity. On the other hand, there is the failure of state governments to provide effective Metropolitan

management, alignment of its various departments and agencies and coordinated governance in and

for Sydney.

To be clear this means that for the Committee for Sydney, governance reform is not something we

urge just for local councils. It should also apply to the way state government agencies operate in and

manage Sydney. Fundamentally there also need to be better aligned between tiers of government of

the kind identified previously in the models from France, Vancouver and indeed Queensland. The

review is a key opportunity to make progress on all these levels.

A vision for transformed local government

The Committee has a positivevision for local government:of a

less introspective, outwardlooking

better resourced

more skilled and financially secure sector of the right scale

with the right boundaries and capacity to exercise greater strategic leadership

more empowered to partner state government, which should in due course rescind rate-

capping(a major source of financial problems for councils)

more empowering of their communities.

The best councils already share this vision and are working in alliances and partnerships which lead

the way to the reformed sector we advocate: sharing resources, reducing costs, collaborating on

innovative approaches to infrastructure funding and provision, partnering with other councils and state

government to meet strategic needs and exploit opportunities,creating new deliberative

platforms,often now digital, for their communities. The aim of the review however, driven by

challenges of financial sustainability of the many small councils and the strategic benefits of scale and

critical mass, must be to incentivise and indeed mandate such collaborations and indeed council

amalgamations of the kind which have been sweeping cities with which Sydney is effectively in

competition.


No local government review at this time and in this place can in our view ignore the possible

advantages that would flow from the benefits of scale. Put simply, can Sydney productively sustain

43 local councils in its metropolitan area? Wholesale reform is required. While arguments will

continue about whether Sydney is appropriate for a one-city, one government approach like

Brisbane, consideration should be given to a reform program that sees Sydney’s local government

rationalised towards a smaller number of perhaps ten subregions or ‘regional councils’. We note that

Canberra has a single council which performs well at a scale of 300,000+ and this may provide some

guide as to the scale ultimately required.

We also add immediately that we are attracted to the Auckland reform of balancing the reduction in

councils from 7 to 1 with the creation of 21 local boards involving communities. We also stress the

need and opportunity in the digital era to use new digital platforms and technologies not just to

improve service design and delivery but to engage residents as never before in plan-making, policy

development, delivery and indeed governance. A new more empowered community and strengthened

localism can balance the creation of more strategic and bigger scale local government.

Local government reorganisation: the new norm

Local government consolidation is becoming the norm in Australasia with Aucklandalready seeing

efficiencies as well as enhanced community engagement, with a reduction of 2000 staff with no drop

in service standards or levels of infrastructure investment, and savings of $140 million, in its first year.

In Perth, the WA government has also initiated a radical review of governance while in Tasmania

there is a review under way for Hobart and Southern Tasmania.

Brisbane’s capacity for integrated planning and cross government and agency collaboration is

enhanced by the large scale of city and local government in South Eastern Queensland – and has

recently been mirrored across regional Queensland. And Victoria and Melbourne are enjoying the fruit

of the consolidation of local government which was undertaken in the 1990s. In a globalised economy

investors view good governance and effective decision-making as essential investment criteria.

Competing cities get this.

Sydney must not get left behind

This was true 5 years ago when the Sydney Chamber of Commerce/University of Sydney Planning

Research Centre published ‘Who’s Governing Sydney?’, a question which remains as compelling

today as it was then. By comparison with Shanghai, London, Toronto, Frankfurt and San Francisco

Sydney exhibited council fragmentation, a lack of Metropolitan consolidation and constrained

autonomy vis a vis government.

Today, Sydney faces similar challenges: the need for an economic and innovation strategy and

partnership with business at the city-wide scale; coordinating services beyond arbitrary administration

boundaries; marketing globally and attracting international talent; and the need to deal effectively with

problems of transport, urban sprawl, renewal, waste management, water and energy management

and the environment at the appropriate Metropolitan level. This is why joint opportunity of the local

government review and the review of planning – two sides of the same coin in the Committee view –

must be seized.

It is not to say that all problems of metropolitan planning and governance would be solved by

amalgamations. However, it is hard to address key strategic challenges while Councils are

constrained by the lack of authority, economy and resourcing that comes from such small rate bases.

With rare exceptions which prove the rule, councils are mostly unable to form equal partnerships with


State or Federal Government to undertake major infrastructure investments, social policy reforms and

business development initiatives. Reform is vital.

Beyond local government reform: transforming metropolitan management

But we stress that our vision, informed by the COAG Reform Council review of planning systems, is

also of reformed state government coordination and management of Greater Sydney. We believe a

key principle set out in the planning Green Paper can overcome fragmentation and create a better

basis for the cross government alignment and better metropolitan management that Sydney needs –

and that this principle should guide also the local government review.That is the principle of

subregionalisation within Sydney. Add to this some lessons from and global best practice on, cross

tier, multi-government alignment and coordination as we have seen (in Vancouver, France and

Queensland for example) and there is a prospect of a substantive governance reform program with

real impact for Sydney.

Subregional structures and planning

The Committee sees a great opportunity in the emphasis placed in the planning Green Paper on

subregional structures for planning and infrastructure development and a need for this approach to be

reinforced in the local government review. We see it as a way of overcoming the fragmentation of

local government in Sydney whilst strengthening its capacity, resource base and ability to take

strategic leadership, of aligning tiers of government, of transforming the performance of the state

government as metropolitan managers and of creating a new more interactive relationship between

communities and government. It’s that important.

A great city requires good governance capable of aligning a myriad of interests into a community that

seeks common advantage and an agreed strategy to achieve it. Cities which have such a strategic

focus are best placed to meet the economic and social challenges of globalisation – and exploit its

opportunities.

A great ‘strategic city’ is one where all levels of government, the private sector and the general

community work together coherently so that resources are well and productively allocated. Currently,

with its multiplicity of local councils and tiers of government, Sydney has a fractured system of

governance and that effective alignment of priorities we see – and need - in the ‘strategic city’ is

difficult to achieve.

Sydney’s ‘governance gap’, to which we have drawn attention in various studies and submissions is

almost certainly at the heart of the comparative slowing down of economic, housing and demographic

growth. This gap, which increasingly differentiates Sydney from cities in Australia and globally with

which it is in competition, is also at the heart of the delivery failure to which the COAG Reform Council

Report alludes.

Sydney has a plethora of small councils and no governance at a metropolitan level. Its ‘strategic‘,

metropolitan plan is not statutory and currently has no priority in a structured hierarchy of plans over

the existing 43 councils’ local environmental plans. Put simply the next metropolitan plan faces the

same problems as the current one: there is no one in charge of implementing it, no single entity with

the capacity and mandate to deliver and implement a sustainable, strategic plan for Sydney.

The proposed subregionalisation in the Green Paper, whilst not meeting the ultimate need we see for

more Metro level governance for Greater Sydney, is thus a significant step in the direction of filling the


strategic governance gap in our global city. There is a unique opportunity to link the

subregionalisation required by the planning Green Paper with a subregional clustering of local

governments following the local government review. Sydney needs more strategic planning structures

and approaches – and also more strategic and less parochial local government. The prospects are

good that the Green Paper process and local government reform can bring effective and aligned

subregionalism to Sydney. Jointly, they will be transformative.

Our planning submission makes the virtues of subregionalism clear from a strategic planning,

infrastructure and growth management perspective.There are a range of advantages.

Subregional structures can:

Planning and growth

place greater emphasis on delivering economic objectives and on the State or City-significant

infrastructure and development projects which underpin productivity

rise above some of the groundless NIMBYism which has inhibited necessary housing

development

help integrate land-use and infrastructure planning– offering the ability to operate and plan across

boundaries and deliver a more integrated approach to infrastructure and land-use planning

provide opportunities to develop innovative approaches to funding infrastructure

enable community involvement at a more strategic level

develop strategic implementation plans to delivery subregional elements of the metropolitan plan

build subregional capacity to deliver growth and urban renewal linked to investment in

infrastructure that crosses local authority boundaries for example Parramatta Road

Efficient provision of services, financial stability and better resources

promote resource sharing and build on current subregional best practice to improve the efficiency,

affordability and sustainability of service provision across Sydney e.g. library services, waste

disposal, water, sewerage, street lighting and road maintenance;

attract better resourcing of local government

improve financial stability by reducing costs and better management

Stronger leadership, positive engagement of communities and more equal partnership with state agencies

develop stronger leadership – smaller number of better paid politicians and Chief Executives

rebuild confidence in local government

create scale and capacity to have a more equal partnership and dialogue with state agencies –

planning, transport, finance/treasury, department of Premier and Cabinet and others

So we endorse the case for planning subregions set out in the Green Paper and make the case for

local governments to form functional subregions in our formal response to the Page review. We see

this as in principle the correct path to take on the path to create metropolitan consolidation. However,

for those unconvinced yet of the case for amalgamations, the new subregional planning structures

can be seen as in effect pilots for a broader transformation and structures which can perhaps enable

a more considered transition over time from the current fractured state of local government to the


more consolidated state we advocate.

We also strongly support and advocate that the local government review endorses the new

transformative delivery tool identified in the planning Green Paper of Subregional Delivery Plans.

They should be based on new subregional boundaries that will group local councils based on

economic growth patterns, natural resource boundaries and infrastructure catchments.

The boundaries of subregions

These should be big enough to have the capacity to deliver strategic planning and infrastructure

objectives and yet of a size at which communities can engage on issues of relevance to them. Key

drivers of subregional boundaries may be labour markets and transport corridors; population size and

density may be other factors. Informing the judgement will be the experience of joint working of the

existing regional organisations of councils though and the JRPs though the precise boundaries of

existing structures will not necessarily fit the purpose of subregional planning and governance in the

future Sydney. Four or five subregional entities seem to us to be too few; twenty-five would seem to

be too many Auckland Council area has 1.3 million residents but also has twenty-one local boards to

ensure localisation goes with centralisation and critical mass. London councils on average have 150-

200,000 residents with no level beneath them. Clearly, getting the scale right, with form fitting

function, will be a critical area for urgent consideration for the review.

We would add that whatever emerges from the review needs to recognise the importance of Western

Sydney to Sydney and ensure that this critical area has the appropriate planning and delivery

structures to secure the step change in coordination, investment, services and infrastructure needed

to ensure the highest quality development and that the area’s potential is fully realised. The

experience of WSROC should inform the process of designing new structures in the area.

Arguably, appropriatesubregions could have the key strategic centres such as Parramatta at their

heart. These local governments could then perhaps be a lead local government in the preparation of

subregionalisation in conjunction with the state government. Such a subregion with a broader area

and rate base would be a natural foundation for a similar model to that of the Central Sydney Planning

Committee governance structure, to provide the State Government with an effective partnership

structure in the development for example of such hubs of key economic significance.

Link-up the subregions?

At the same time consideration should also be given to linking the new subregional structures in a pan

Sydney framework. This should not be another tier of government with formal executive functions. It

can be,like the Council of Mayors SEQ (South East Queensland) a network sharing learning, and

perhaps resources where appropriate, linking up strategic thinking and planning for programs or

interventions of a Metropolitan scale, helping to deliver the next Sydney Metro plan both subregionally

and across subregions. A de facto ‘Sydney Senate’ made up of the chairs or leaders of subregions,

enabling a civic and professional planning dialogue to take place for Greater Sydney without adding to

tiers or costs. This could be a significant partner for state government in Metropolitan management.

Local boards and new ways of communicating, sharing information and enabling creative community engagement

The opportunity also exists now to use planning and local government reform at subregional level to

actually strengthen community involvement and governance –if the principle of greater community


engagement and a closer relationship between people and politicians set out as the founding principle

of the Green Paper is fully and creatively implemented; and not just for strategic planning purposes

but for the purposes also of renewing and empowering local democracy itself.

Mindful of the need to balance scale and strategic capacity with localism and community participation

we are impressed by the innovations in Auckland and the structures in New York founded on the

principle of ‘local government consolidation combined with local community boards’. These have a

formative role in planning and policy development and should be explored if there is to be local

government consolidation and subregionalisation in the Sydney context.

At the same time, the reviews on planning and local government come at a moment of transformation

in the analytical, information and deliberative tools or platforms available to planners, place-makers,

elected leaders and the community. The ongoing digitisation of public and private services and of

engagement with residents, users and customers, is an opportunity to connect and serve

communities, use mass insight and data, understand key challenges and organise appropriate

responses as never before. In the digital era, communities can shape policy with professionals, public

servants and elected leaders.

Using digital platforms and media we can combine strategic mapping with neighbourhood data – or

even at a smaller scale – to provide leading edge geospatial planning and targeted public

interventions. Sensors embedded in key infrastructure in transport corridors can inform policy makers

on an immediate basis so that their responses can be calibrated to fit the need. There is a huge

opportunity using these technologies and the empowering of residents they enable, to create in

Sydney world class platforms for community engagement and involvement in plan-making, public

policy development and service design and delivery, saving considerable resources and creating a

new relationship between ‘governors and governed’.

Virtual Sydney: towards a metropolitan voice and dialogue

These new tools can play a critical role in the creating not just of interactive platforms for engagement

in the creating of subregional development and infrastructure plans but in the very building of a

shared subregional identity online. We have argued that a new civic dialogue around planning and the

very future of our communities and our city needs to be crafted. The new subregional structures can

provide the platforms for this dialogue using new digital and social media. More Sydney citizens and

more diverse participants can be part of this dialogue than have ever been involved before. And by

linking communities first through their subregional structures and then by linking those subregions on

online platforms too, we can create what has rarely if ever existed before and urgently needs to: an all

of Sydney dialogue about our city’s development and future.

Gaining community support for reform and growth: Action by the Committee for Sydney

The Committee for Sydney in response to this moment of reform and ambition by the State

Government makes a commitment to use our own resources and initiatives to provide the necessary

thought leadership, expertise and public endorsement to help government win community buy-in to

the linked planning and governance reforms and the ‘managing growth’ agenda of which they are

part. Central to that buy-in will be new and deeper forms of community engagement, making a reality

of new subregional planning and, above all, delivering development on the ground that is not just

denser but of a quality that befits a world class city.

The Committee will therefore actively seek to make the argument in support of the planning Green


Paper and its key principle of subregionalisation in support of achieving key economic and social

benefits.

We will be an advocate for subregional structures - and better management of metropolitan Sydney

by the state government and its agencies – and would expect to see this principle reinforced following

the local government review. We are excited by the possibilities presented by the momentum towards

subregionalisation to fill the governance and delivery gaps in Sydney. It is a fitting response to the

COAG Reform Council critique of Sydney and will make a real difference over time. And we will back

it, investing our own policy and communications resources and sharing the political risk with State

Government.

We believe that subregionalisation is a bold way of solving Sydney’s governance and delivery gap

and an elegant way of ensuring cross agency collaboration and delivery of infrastructure on a

strategically significant and operationally viable way – enabling more of the Big City decisions our

global city needs to take.

Conclusion: ‘What ‘top 5’ changes should be made to local government to help meet your community’s future challenge?’: Key Question 3

Our answer to this will have been clear from our submission but we summarise to conclude. With the

caveat that the changes required are as much about state government reform as they are about local

government reorganisation, about greater clarity by state government about the resourcing and

duties, and about innovation in state government ways of working as much as any other tiers of

government we answer thus:

Fewer, more strategic and well-resourced councils in a decisive move to subregional planning,

infrastructure,delivery and governance structures in Sydney

To work with better coordinated state government departments tasked to work together across

government and with local government in subregional contexts

Exploration of how other jurisdictions have combined local government consolidation with localism

in the form of community boards

The use of innovative digital platforms and other relevant approaches empower communities and

involve and engage more residents in plan-making, policy development, service design and

delivery and deliberative democracy

To explore ways in which local government reorganisation, the creation of subregional structures,

the improved metropolitan management of Sydney by state government and new digital tools to

create a better civic dialogue and stronger community voice involvement can be used to create

more of a metropolitan conversation, voice, identity and collaborative framework for Greater

Sydney.

the review of the planning system in nsw...committee for sydney: response of the committee for...

Documents