What's New
File Size:
169.10 kB
05 February 2010
Any attempt to impose a connection to the national broadban network on all new development will give a planning/consent authority enormous power to block a development if some (potentially) very expensive arrangements are not put in place.File Size:
125.40 kB
01 February 2010
The Ku-ring-gai plan is not fair and reasonable. The plan's excessive levies will result in reduced urban renewal.File Size:
83.46 kB
29 January 2010
We're concerned with the way that ANEF contours are prepared by airport operators and particularly how the current system is open to manipulation by airport operators to unnecessarily seek the serialisation of land in the vicinity of airports. The role of Airservices Australia in the approval of ANEF is vital, but recent experience brings their effectiveness into question.File Size:
291.65 kB
04 January 2010
The environmental, social and economic costs of different adaption strategies must be properly considered. Strong credible property rights are crucial to securing sustained and ongoing investment. The willingness of individuals and the private sector to bear some risk when acquiring and dealing with property assets should be recognised.File Size:
92.32 kB
18 November 2009
This legislation expressly seeks to overturn a judgment of the NSW Court of Appeal. The Valuer-General has been wrongly assuming that a property owner had the right to erect an entirely new, modern, building in place of the existing building. To make valuations in this way, is to tax the owners of heritage affected properties for a right they do not have.File Size:
222.47 kB
16 October 2009
We do not support the proposed severe restriction on car parking.File Size:
63.80 kB
10 September 2009
The proposed legislation sets a dangerous precedent because it empowers the government to make regulations willy-nilly that may profoundly affect the property rights of NSW citizens.File Size:
198.83 kB
09 September 2009
We have grave concerns with the use of section 94A plans to gradually increase taxes imposed on new development. Furthermore the Urban Taskforce must record its alarm with the disclosure by Council that the existing plan will not meet legislative requirements outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.File Size:
259.62 kB
31 August 2009
These two documents, as currently conceived, will further complicate the development assessment process. They will increase the emphasis on box ticking, at the expense of a genuine evaluation of the individual merit of development applications.File Size:
191.23 kB
