Opinion

Blogs

No new neighbours

There are similarities, I think, in our opposition to asylum seekers and new subdivisions big or small. We're sure we don't want them although we're not sure why. Perhaps it's because we see them both, the asylum seekers and the influx of residents into a new subdivision, as a horde, because we see ourselves at risk of being swamped. A new neighbour, a new family in the street, is welcomed, but the same people and others in a new street around the corner are something less than welcome.

Somehow that which is all ours won't be all ours any longer, and another factor may be our fear of change, a fear that the community we know will not be the same. There is always opposition to a new subdivision from the residents who believe it will change their landscape and their community, and those protesting residents are not always neighbouring.

We share that, and for that reason I think we saw as heroes the residents whose court challenge overturned the approvals for big subdivisions at Catherine Hill Bay, Gwandalan and Huntlee near Branxton. The residents' case was that a former state minister for planning had shown bias in negotiating a deal for the transfer of land to the public in the event of approval for the subdivisions, and the judge agreed with them, describing the deal as "land bribes".

But for the years I reported local government affairs in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s councils always negotiated a better public deal from developers. That was often, even usually, land for parks; sometimes it was both the provision of land and the building of a child-care centre or a community hall. Sweeteners but hardly bribes!

I cannot see how the loss of almost 8000 houses across three subdivisions is anything to cheer about. Can you?

On Friday we saw a similar response to the Department of Housing building dozens of public housing projects in the Lower Hunter using Federal Government stimulus money. No one, of course, wants a block of public housing units in their street. Of course? And everyone has good and worthy reasons why such a development should not be in their parish, and that ranges from property values to frogs and owls.

People have to live somewhere but where are the 160,000 extra people predicted for the Lower Hunter over the next 20 years going to live? Should we push them off in boats to seek asylum in Indonesia, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka! Should we bar new people from living within 200km of the coast!

Is our response a natural selfishness? And should it sway government and courts?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 30/10/2009 4:58:00 PM | Comments (38)

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

Build all the public housing at Bourke. This will keep all the problems in one place, and make it easy to manage.

Posted by Jen, 2/11/2009 9:39:08 AM

NSW used to mean Newcastle Sydney Wollongong - now it means North/ South/ West Sydney. Move 'em out and decentralise - we don't need 160,000 extra people in the Hunter, but a few thousand in Dubbo, a few thousand in Orange, etc, etc could make all the difference. Of course that would take leadership and vision - hardly something we can expect under the Worst State Government in the history of the planet.

Posted by Scott Hillard, 2/11/2009 10:21:01 AM

I dont so much have a problem with the developments, what I do object to (in terms of public housing at least) is the lack of public planning information. We recently purchased nearby a street which contains rundown Public Housing units. We were interested in what the plans for them were as they were unoccupied as a result of the damage. We were told there were no plans by Public Housing, however that things can change any time. Council just pointed us at Public Housing. So imagine our suprise when 1 month later, we find a development has been given not only the funding, but a green light to proceed. Surely, a development cannot be designed have all its approvals and funding sorted in 1 month? Had we known, would it have changed our decision to buy? Probably not, but we may have argued for a reduced price. At least we would have bought "forewarned". I think its contemptuous to not allow prospective purchasers the ability to be aware of what may be in their regions. RTA couldnt build a road out of the blue, why can Public Housing do it?

Posted by Greg, 2/11/2009 10:44:07 AM

The old 'deals" you spoke of JC , were they not done as a requirement of the existing framework of planning laws at the time? Is it not the law that determines what is right and wrong. If our laws are flawed then is it not our duty to complain and have then examined and if necessary ..changed? If things get overturned they may have broken our laws. So where is the enemy, the lawmakers or the lawbreakers? Sorry to answer your question with a question but I think that is the essence of your questions. The laws are the framework on which we build our community, society, cities and built environment. God forgive me for bringing lawyers into the discussion!

Posted by notaplanner, 2/11/2009 10:48:53 AM

Jeff, the problem with the Catherine Hill Bay and Huntlee developments (and the reason to cheer at their demise) is that these developments, even by the work of the very department that approved them, were POOR! On all planning grounds, they are not good sites for thousands of houses. Catho and Branxton, of all places in the Hunter, have the least access to public transport, schools/education, community facilities, health etc etc. They were listed as the LEAST SUITABLE sites from 90-odd potential new release areas that were initially identified in the Draft Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. If we were to take 90 potential housing sites, why would it ever make sense to allocate the WORST TWO for development?? Why?, because the promoters of each had a little meeting with Minister Sartor. It makes poor planning to allocate sites on the basis that these were allocated. Would you look at 90 potential new homes, list them from best to worst, then choose the worst one to buy?? I don't think so?

Posted by IAmAPlanner, 2/11/2009 11:52:46 AM

Do you think, then, that the assessment of these developments as poor had anything to do with their demise? And would the people who objected to the developments not objected if the developments had not been poor?

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 2/11/2009 1:00:27 PM

I wouldn't worry too much, Jeff. The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS), being the planning document that contemplates much of this growth is a POLITICAL document, not a meaningful planning strategy. Any assessment of the actual growth rates against those suggested in the LHRS shows how far off the mark it is. Nobody was going to Huntlee. The market had spoken loud and clear well befor the Minister pulled the rug on the approval. Our collective xenophobia is simply a reaction to the risk of us losing our lifestyles, or at least having them compromised. Unfortunately that is already hapenning, and the enemy is us. Been to the beach on a Sunday morning lately? Seen the fifty million 'nippers' running about, with their pasty, bogan parents in tow, sucking down lattes and wearing 'age manager' rashies? And effectively blocking the beach to those who want to surf without running over clubbie wannabes? Our lifestyles are being eroded by our existing neighbours! *sigh* I know. I know ~ I should move to Easter Island, where the community IQ is higher.

Posted by Abundance, 2/11/2009 11:56:46 AM

The reason no-one wants these subdivisions is because there will be no infrastructure built by the Government to accommodate everyone. Our Labor politicians are are quick to put their hands out for the extra taxes but they will put the burden back on Councils to build roads etc. which will cause rates to increase. Just like Pokolbin roads where the Labor government is quite happy taking the wine taxes to spend in Sydney but leave the roads up to Cessnock council.

Posted by Paul, 2/11/2009 12:28:48 PM

Where to put all the people? In taller buildings on the same land that Newcastle now occupies. The alternative is endless sprawl along the coast and up the valley. For environmental reasons alone that should stop. From my expat's point of view (I live in Beijing), Newcastle's environment is even better than most Novocastrians think. It is a waste that only 500,000 people get to enjoy it. Yes, of course there will be sacrifices as the density rises, but the city would not be ruined by a population of even 1 million. Higher density can be managed carefully, and it brings the advantages of a big city as well as the (exaggerated) disadvantages. The first place in Newcastle for higher density is where it is already happening: the inner city. I don't see why 30,000 people shouldn't live between the beach and the west end of Hunter Street, enjoying the harbor and beaches. So far so good. The nimby opposition will really heat up when the tall buildings spread to Hamilton, Wickham, Maryville and further inland.

Posted by Bradley Perrett, 2/11/2009 1:05:18 PM

Good to hear from you Brad! We have two other contributors from China, both Herald readers who moved to China to, in one case, teach English and, in the other, to run a factory that supplies specialised furniture to Australia. You are right, too! High rise is inevitable, the ugly truth. The sprawl creates massive problems in terms of providing infrastructure and protecting the environment.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 2/11/2009 2:05:19 PM

WE are all resistant to change. It takes a huge leap to embrace change. My opposition to new housing developments is the lack of infrastructure to support those families and communities. Where is the public transport planning? Where will people work? Where are the community halls etc. Look at places like north west sydney. Those poor buggers have virtually no public transport and clogged toll roads. It makes for very strained living environment.

Posted by leahkf, 2/11/2009 1:11:37 PM

I should point out I chose to live in Newcastle, I moved here for the lifestyle. And I chose to live in Maryville as I'm a 10 minute walk to Hamilton Station where i can catch a train to the city and go shopping, art gallery, library or to the beach. I did also use the train to go to Sydney (not so much nowadays). I can walk to my GP, shops, library and other services in Hamilton. No matter how much I love Catherine Hill Bay and would like to live there, there is simply no support services...... And sorry abundance, I will be one of those pasty parents with a little nipper running about on the beach (assuming he wants this as well). It's a healthy lifestyle! And some of those nippers will become future volunteer surf life savers.

Posted by leahkf, 2/11/2009 1:18:57 PM

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next >