The NSW state government has been forced to release documents related to its decision to dump the Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). They reveal the incredible power developers hold over planning decisions in NSW.
At the end of June, the NSW upper house ordered the state government to hand over all the documents relating to its controversial decision to dump a vital climate resilience policy package, known as the Design and Place SEPP.
Those documents are now public, revealing the ease with which major development companies, such as Meriton, or lobby groups such as Urban Taskforce can arrange meetings with government officials at the highest levels.
The Design and Place SEPP was a planned policy package designed to improve the liveability and sustainability of new apartments and master planned communities. It also included improvements to the state’s BASIX building sustainability standards.
The Fifth Estate has now viewed the documents, requested by The Greens through a parliamentary motion in the NSW Legislative Council, which reveal new insights into what happened during the days before the policy was scrapped – and raise big new questions about the level of influence by the property and development industry over government action.
Greens MP Cate Faehrmann told The Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday that the documents raised the alarm that Urban Taskforce had “an inappropriate level of influence” over Roberts and his office, and had “deliberately set out to undermine the government architect and her work”.
Here are some of the revelations about what happened within the planning department and other parts of government in the days and weeks before the SEPP was scrapped:
Harry Triguboff wasn’t happy with the SEPP
On 2 December 2021, former planning minister Rob Stokes announced three major reforms to planning laws, including nine planning “principles” and the design and place SEPP.
After taking over from Gladys Berejiklian, incoming Premier Dominic Perrottet announced a major cabinet reshuffle on 20 December 2021, which saw Anthony Roberts take over as planning minister.
In the next few days, Meriton managing director Harry Triguboff wrote to the government to voice his displeasure about the SEPP.
“Like with the original version of the SEPP, nobody was asking for the changes that the Government architect proposed. Again, we are surprised your department is asking us to spend money on items that nobody is talking about. The units I can’t sell or lease are not because of a small balcony or small storage. It’s because they don’t have adequate parking.”
Tom Forrest at Urban Taskforce wasn’t happy either…
Another person who voiced his displeasure at the proposed SEPP was Urban Taskforce chief executive Tom Forrest.
Ministerial diary disclosures show that NSW Planning Minister Anthony Roberts met with Urban Taskforce Australia on 15 February to discuss planning reform.
A few days later, Mr Forrest wrote directly to NSW DPIE (Department of Planning Industry and Environment) deputy secretary of planning policy Brett Whitworth and deputy secretary NSW planning Marcus Ray calling for the policy to be entirely scrapped:
Concerns about Urban Taskforce trying to circumvent the process
By the end of February, NSW government architect Abbie Galvin was raising the red flag to Mr Whitworth over concerns Urban Taskforce was attempting to “circumvent the process” and “jump to the front of the queue”:
The government architect tried to keep the SEPP alive
Soon after, Ms Glavin was concerned enough to begin looking for ways to “recut the SEPP”, or keep a small team working on the policy until industry was ready to embrace it:
Tom Forrest’s GIPA request
Mr Forrest also filed a NSW GIPA (Government Information Public Access Act) request for documents relating to a cost benefit analysis by Deloitte that showed there was $1.40 of economic benefit for every $1 spent on the DP SEPP.
“As you are aware, industry has very real concerns that there will be significant costs associated with the implementation of the Design and Place SEPP,” Mr Forrest wrote.
“During the cursory presentation of the findings document late last year, it was apparent that the Benefit Cost analysis concluded benefits derived by the society and community to be $1.40 for every dollar spent by the developer!
“But the dollar is being spent by the developer!! What benefit do they get for expenditure of this money?”
Meeting with Meriton in the days before the SEPP was scrapped
On 30 March – just days before the SEPP was dumped on 5 April – DPIE secretary Mick Cassel, along with a number of other senior departmental officials, held a meeting with Triguboff’s company Meriton:
There was a meeting with Urban Taskforce the day before the SEPP was scrapped
The day before Minister Roberts announced he was scrapping the SEPP, on 4 April, a meeting was held between Mr Forrest from Urban Taskforce and senior departmental officials, including DPIE secretary Michael Cassel:
More departmental briefing notes:
Tom Forrest was a happy man after the meeting
On 5 April, during a lunchtime event organised by Urban Taskforce, Minister Roberts announced that it had abandoned its plan to introduce the SEPP.
Mr Forrest made sure to write a short note to DPIE deputy secretary NSW planning Marcus Ray to express his pleasure at meeting him the day before:
Don’t release the secret speech!
One of the great mysteries of the SEPP debacle has been what exactly the minister said during his speech during the Urban Taskforce lunch, as it hasn’t officially been published on any government websites.
Internally, the department had a transcript of Minister Roberts speech, where he announced the SEPP was cancelled. But DPIE communications director Korena Flanagan ordered it not to be released publicly:
Orders to delete came from the top
With white-hot debate still raging in the planning and construction industry—and sections of the broader community—over the controversial decision to dump the DP SEPPand the nine planning principles, the DPIE quietly hit the delete key on information about the proposal.
Thankfully, a copy of those documents was kept online by The Fifth Estate.
The government documents reveal the order to scrub the policy proposal documents came directly through the minister’s office.
Mr Whitworth also ordered departmental staff to create a set of “holding lines” for “when people notice what we have done”.
Internally, directions around removing the planning principles and to “pull them down ASAP” was treated as “priority one today” by departmental staff:
The removal of government “documents” that only exist in electronic form on the web is effectively an erasure and re-writing of history, and as such constitutes a fundamental erosion of democracy. Simply Orwellian.
The same is happening in Victoria with new policy (laws) led by 24 councils (50% of the Vic population) literally sitting on the Planning Minister’s desk to authorise a formal public review process and comment, let alone actual approval of anything. A lot easier to keep it all under wraps and not allow the public the opportunity to speak and comment to any possible changes.
Rather, we are at the mercy of these back-door conversations and misleading rhetoric from ill informed developers; some that should be in a hospice rather than preach about what society truly wants and needs.
This report confirms that government cannot function without unbridled corruption. These politicians and bureaucrats cannot achieve their objectives legally within the framework of government. The question stands out; ‘Is it impossible to operate our government legally?’ It follows; ‘Do we destroy our flora and flora so we can build regardless, or do we stop building?’
Thanks for posting this important info. and to add a bit more it was Mr Aaron Gadiel, CEO of the Urban Taskforce, who argued for reducing farmland “should we … deprive ourselves of housing and job-creating industries to prop up an industry which is not economically viable?”. Well now we have a food price crises so thanks guys.
Urban Taskforce trots out the red tape mantra ad nauseum.
They just want the freedom to build crap.
seriously – the developer saying they cant pay for the changes????
The way it actually works is that the homebuyer pays for the changes- upgrades to the specification to reap lower costs of living & greater comfort, as part of the home package & the developer still makes a massive profit.
What the developer was worried about is changing the status quo even a tiny bit.
It’s completely stuffed that a few annoyed billionaires can keep the building standards in the past & not allow homebuyers to love into a home that is more sustainable, more comfortable & has lower energy costs.
Meantime, what exactly is the position of the Opposition and the Shadow Minister on the D and P SEPP? Do they even have one? Is it true, as I have heard, that they swallow the lie it will slow the housing supply line? In fact, the supply line works like a tap. The tap is always on but when prices go up, the industry turns the tap up and when it drops, it turn the tap down. Simple! It’s common knowledge that the NSW Oppostion is illterate on the subject of design and architecture in relation to planning, sustainability and affordability (as much if not more so than Ryde’s great gift to the world, A Roberts) but the politics of supply in the housing industry? Are they stupid or in cahoots?
Well there are no surprises here and of course it’s not just a NSW problem, its a national one – BIG business wins out every time over the community, over citizens and over expert advice.
Unless the 24 Victorian Councils calling for more prevail at the eleventh hour, in a matter of weeks we will hear that after 13 years of languishing at 6* energy efficiency, the National Construction Code will creep forward to 7*, delivering average 24% energy savings and emissions reductions. In 2022, in the last decade we have to get close to net zero for a survivable future, the pinacle of our ambitions for the NCC is 7*. By 2040, this will deliver just 8.6% housing emissions reductions (43% by 2040 Ha!) and a trivial 13.44% housing emissions reductions by 2050 (Net zero 2050 Ha!). Whereas, we could mandate Net Zero Now and stop adding to the problem of housing stock that needs retrofit to get to net zero.
AND here’s the kicker, a Net Zero new home is MORE AFFORDABLE from day 1 for the homeowner and helps us give our kids a survivable future. But no, this would be inconvenient to housebuilders and not beneficial to the energy and fossil fuel industries that donate handsomely to our largest political parties. So when these decisions get weighed – homeowners/voters/affordable home-buyers lose out to BIG vested interests/sponsors every time.
Most dissappointing of all, the GBCA, ASBEC, Renew and now even the Climate Council (that should know better) are backing this 6* to 7* transition as some sort of achievement – vested interests and Greenwash prevails AGAIN! Don’t Look Up!