21 October 2013 – State of Emergency
The New South Wales Government has declared a state of emergency for fires in and around the Blue Mountains.
Premier Barry O’Farrell says the emergency declaration gives authorities additional powers for the next 30 days, including the right to order the public to leave areas and cutting gas and power supplies if needed.
“These powers include the right to order the public to leave or enter areas, shore up or demolish buildings, and prevent people disobeying an order given under these powers,” Mr O’Farrell said.
Read more ABC news
The ABC website says three large fires are burning in the Blue Mountains at Lithgow, Springwood and Mount Victoria, and the Rural Fire Service is worried they could merge into one massive fire.
“The blaze at Mount Victoria has reached the Grose Valley, and there are fears the fire could run down the valley into densely populated Richmond.
“The fire in Lithgow is equivalent in size to an area spanning Palm Beach, Botany Bay and Sydney’s inner west.”
Fire alerts have also been declared for: Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania,
Victoria, Western Australia
Follow:
Cuts to climate change research
Meanwhile the NSW government has made “deep cuts” to staff and funding into climate change research and adaptation, according to scientist Peter Smith, retrenched in March from his position as head of government’s climate change science group.
Dr Smith told The Sydney Morning Herald that his “team of 10 had been slashed to just three whose work remained climate-focused. A similar cut had been made to a separate team of 10 working on climate adaptation.”
”The [Office of Environment and Heritage] was being downgraded anyway from a super department under the previous government to being an office attached to the premier’s [department]. The reduction in the climate change [section] was even more significant than the general reduction.”
Dr Smith said bushfire dangers had increased significantly especially in spring, with national mean temperatures rising 0.9 degrees since 1960.
Environment Minister Robyn Parker told a Nature Conservation Council meeting on Saturday there were plans to introduce a regional climate model with the University of NSW next year, and an extra $3 million in research grants to universities.
“The NSW government is investing $20 million on research and programs that will assist communities to be better prepared to respond and adapt to a changing climate, such as climate projection modeling,” Ms Parker said.
Dr Smith told the SMH he welcomed the projects, which he said had been initiated by the previous Labor governments.
But he said the cuts in funding at OEH would make knowledge gained harder to share with other state agencies and policymakers.
He said it ypically took longer for a study to be approved than it took to conduct and there was little support for publicity.
”It was very acute, very frustrating, very problematical trying to get information onto the website for climate change,” Dr Smith said.
Instead, governments – federal and state – were likely to talk up other issues, such as energy efficiency. While important, such policies were easy to promote since they saved money as well as cut greenhouse gas emissions.
”When you really see governments are going to take climate change seriously is when you see them spending money on adaptation,” Dr Smith said.
Read the whole story
17 October 2013–NSW Bushfires . Photos: mostly from Twitter, Via ABC.
I wish to reply to the article on the changes to the Planning system please:
As a Swede trained in urbanism, economics and spatial analysis, I despair of the planning, property and development industries in Sydney.
It is sad to see such spin, and deception coming out of these industries. They are the servant of the economy, not the driver of the economy. They plan for or provide space in which the real economy operates, rather than being the economy themselves. Unfortunately, they do not seem to comprehend this.
Having worked in Europe in advanced planning and development systems for most of my life, coming to Australia was like stepping back into the stone age for planning and development. NCC, HSB, Skanska, whilst not perfect, are all excellent and intelligent operators compared to many Australian developers I have come across. Then there is the Australian development lobby, which makes stone age man look incredibly intelligent and expert compared to their staff.
Mr Johnson’s comment that the planning system needs to provide for a greater diversity of housing is remarkable for the fact that it is actually the development industry that needs to do this. The planning system as it currently stands actually could deliver this, if only the developers wanted to. Instead they pop out dull monotonous cookie-cutter apartments, where they could actually build a diversity of housing. Developers build the simplest product at the highest density permissible, rather than a diversity if product. Thus the fault is not the planning system, but developer’s blinkered nature. The “current changes” as Mr Johnson says, does not weaken the ability of density to be built into the city at all. The changes simply change the nature of the process, not the outcomes. Thus I must ask Mr Johnson, what planet are you from if you can’t see this?
Code assessability is something that can, and most likely will evolve. Bringing it in sudden and hard as the Development Industry advocates, would do more damage for code assessable development, than a gentle and accepted introduction that Europeans have done, building trust in the up-front strategic planning system first. This sudden change, do you understand how it would work Mr Johnson? Have you worked in a continental European planning system that actually does this at present?
Creating a great city is not something that can be sped up. Nor is it something we should sacrifice to excessive development profits. The word risk that is bandied around all the time is simply rubbish in terms of development in Sydney. It is only an incompetent developer who has “risk” and it is not the planning system that creates it.
As an interested observer of this debate in the media, i also have to ask Mr Johnson just where does he come from, in saying the debate is “too “mono-cultured”, either about suburbia or high rise.” I have not heard this at all. I have heard interesting points about corruption risk, given the Obeid and Kelly saga, which is worth bearing in mind. I have heard about community values and impacts on individual property rights. I have heard about poor process as against good process. But I have not heard the community argue suburbia against high rise. The only group who are spinning this is the Development lobby …
Solely high density and apartments is not diversity Mr Johnson. And with your poor take on diversity, you could do with one of my colleague’s study tours to Asia and Europe, where he could teach you a lot about diversity and density, and how to implement it. And this would teach you about how to implement it in a timely and effective manner. As for Eco-Density, forget Vancouver, and look to Europe, where they have been doing this effectively since the 1970s.
As for Ms Vincin and the Planning Institute, do they actually understand what planning is? I think not, for the proposed changes are neither bold nor ambitious. As with the dull monotonous cookie-cutter apartments, the proposed planning act only promises more of these cheap and nasty no-frills developments that maximises the developer’s bottom line, not the good of the community, and a great city. Coming from an European planning system, with all its faults, that does deliver a good quality urban environment, I can say that the current and proposed systems both fail in this regard.
Again, I don’t think that either Ms Vincin or the Planning Institute would know what a complex planning system is. Many European systems are sophisticated, but not overly complex. NSW’s is average in regard to complexity, but it is very poor due to all the political manipulation that has occurred across the years.
And Ms Vincin, transparency comes from how planners work and report the process of their decisions, their ethics, and the evidence that they use. It does not necessarily from the Act. And the new Act does nothing to encourage transparency, so where are you getting this from?
If the Planning Institute wants to see a cultural change, then they should be learning from Change Management processes, as well as looking to lift the standard of the lower half of the profession who occupy desks in local government or consultancies, and just churn out reports that do nothing except for waste paper. The Planning Institute could learn from some of the world’s better planning systems, if only they knew where to look. Sadly they do not. A good friend of mine has worked in over 12 different systems, and the Institute looks down on him as irrelevant. Thus if this is their attitude to an internationally recognised and connected planner, no wonder they have such low expectations of good planning and planning culture. Ms Vincin – open your eyes and talk to people who have a depth of experience. Don’t look at the Department. Whilst there are some good people there, there are also terrible people there who do more damage than good.
As for the UDIA, it sounds like they want to trash NSW rather than build it for the long term. Changes to Planning Act are need for the good of the Housing Industry, the broader economy, as well as long term sustainable job creation. Simply allowing developers to do whatever they like is a severe threat to the short, medium and long term sustainability of Sydney, NSW, the Housing Industry (through promotion of mistrust), the broader economy (by only developing product that is super-profitable) and job creation (by not focusing on education and broader economic development).
Mr Albin, the only scare (and spin) campaign I read in the Herald, online, and hear in the news comes from the Development Industry. The initial Act, and the changes to the Act I can assuredly tell you are a fourth-world class planning system – as a colleague says, a first world country who behaves like a third world country. There are third world countries that are trying harder than NSW to do good planning for the long term. And they are changing their cities for the better. Strategic targeted public working with private investment is what creates a real city, not your rose coloured development glasses of private sector absolute-ism.
The housing shortage is not born out by the evidence.
Job creation in Western Sydney can only be effectively boosted by a new airport, not property development.
Project delivery in this State is more affected by politics than planning.
Thus I challenge you Mr Albin, to describe in detail what are the principles and characteristics of a world class planning system, and what evidence do you base this on?