Shortly afterwards, the deputy executive director of the Property Council of NSW, William Power, was appointed by the NSW State Government to become the executive director of the planning department’s COVID-19 response.
That response then involved fast tracking the decision making around major projects, some of which were proposed by members of the Property Council.
The Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) also appointed the NSW Property Council head as its CEO.
In March it was revealed that NSW Premier Dominic “Ponzi” Perrottet devised the genius plan to squeeze new homes into fire zones and flood plains in order to “act on housing affordability”, despite recent devastating bushfires and floods [my emphasis]:
NSW Planning Minister Anthony Roberts scrapped a requirement to consider the risks of floods and fires before building new homes only two weeks after it came into effect and while the state was reeling from a deadly environmental disaster…
A spokesperson for Mr Roberts said the minister had been “given a clear set of priorities to deliver a pipeline of new housing supply and act on housing affordability” by Premier Dominic Perrottet.
Then to add further insult to injury, the NSW Government walked back from its sensible plan to ban dark coloured roofs after after the cost and regulatory burden of adhering to the policy was fiercely criticised by property developers.
Last week, Councils across NSW warned the state government that its proposed changes to planning laws are “not just or fair” and a “rubber stamp for developers” that will create much worse outcomes for the community:
[The changes] included refunding developer application fees if councils failed to meet expected approval time frames.
The changes would also allow developers to take the lead on community consultations and initiate court appeals if proposed plans were rejected, even if the project failed to meet objectives defined in a council’s community strategic plan…
Multiple councils have expressed broad opposition to the changes…
[Wollondilly Shire Council] Mayor Matthew Gould said the reframe was a direct threat to the Council’s efforts to preserve rural lifestyle and the village character of the shire.
“We have major concerns with the proposed changes, which will benefit developers at the expense of the community and sound strategic planning principles,” Mr Gould said.
He said allowing developers to lead community engagement was a mistake.
“I cannot think of a more blatant case of giving the fox the keys to the henhouse then to let developers be the ones responsible for reporting any community concerns with their own development proposals.”
Mr Gould also said setting time frames was unworkable.
“If the time frames are not met, we have to essentially pay an amount of money to the developers to compensate, and likewise if we reject it,” he said.
“So, if we have a proposal that is just completely inappropriate for the shire, that makes absolutely no sense — we have to refund the money to the developer out of our ratepayer funds — which are desperately needed for roads and infrastructure.
“To compensate developers for putting in an absolutely terrible planning proposal in the first place.
“This discussion paper is not about having a good planning system in NSW, this discussion paper is about rubber stamping development”…
Further south, Wollongong City Council also criticised the proposed changes in its submission to the discussion paper.
“Looks to be developer-led system and there is little in the proposed new system to increase a plan-led approach.”
The council also warned the changes would be attractive to “land speculators”.
“The ability for proponents to appeal against a negative Council decision at the end of the process will be a further incentive for speculative developers to ‘roll the dice’ with a rezoning proposal.”
It suggested the changes would “create unnecessary anxiety in the community”.
It argued that “Council is of the view that the proposed new system puts consistency, integrity, transparency and community trust at risk”.
Multiple other NSW councils raised similar concerns.
It is patently clear to anybody that bothers to look that the property lobby pulls the NSW Government’s strings.
“Ponzi” Perrottet’s Government not only bends the planning system at the behest of developers, but has also vigorously lobbied the federal government to ramp-up immigration to extreme levels, which of course benefits developers the most.
Valid community concerns are ignored entirely as the property lobby privatises the gains from extreme immigration, while ordinary NSW residents socialise the costs.
NSW is the capital and leader of the Australian property narco state.
Leith van Onselen is Chief Economist at the MB Fund and MB Super. He is also Chief Economist and co-founder of MacroBusiness.
Leith has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs.
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist
(see all) 
