Abolish two-tier planning law

I refer to the wonderful piece of spin-doctoring published under the heading "Bypass council on planning, says chamber" (Peninsula News, April 18) .

"Council's don't always act in the State's interests," says Matthew Wales.

Is council elected to act in the State's interest?

"In the State's interest" is nothing but a loop hole in the planning process.

Who is to determine what is "in the State's interest" and how it is quantified?

A majority of NSW voters determined that more than 16 years of Labor government was not in the State's interest.

Was every planning decision signed off by Frank Sartor or the Keneally government in "the State's interest"?

I say no.

How does a Planning Minister determine that a four-storey building was not in the State's interest but a taller building is?

Could the answer be "political donations" or is it bigger profits for developers?

Why do we need to by-pass council anyway?

There is a mechanism for holding council accountable.

If they perform poorly, we vote them out of office.

Elitist rich object to this process.

It seems that cashed up developers, investors and the lobbyists they employ are a minority who claim to be disadvantaged when dealing with councils chosen by the local riff-raff.

Mr Wales' media release, after the spin has been removed, is a request for a two-tier system, one law for the rich and another law for the rest.

Those who can't afford lawyers and consultants can deal with council while corporations and cashed up individuals can deal with a higher authority.

This seems to me to be a form of democracy that is usually practiced exclusively by Third World governments.

The State Government should proceed with great haste to abolish Part 3A.

If developers, investors or their lobbyists don't like it they have two choices: Get elected to council or take their cash and their influence interstate, or better still, to the Third World.

Email, 29 Apr 2011 Tim Haylor, Umina