7NEWS Australia published this video item, entitled “NSW land acquisition process criticised by report prepared by parliamentary inquiry | 7NEWS” – below is their description.
People forced to sell their properties to the NSW government to make way for transport infrastructure projects faced bad faith negotiations and repeated lowball compensation offers, a parliamentary inquiry has found.
The upper house transport committee report on land acquisitions for major infrastructure projects found the “current culture of acquiring authorities”, specifically in relation to Sydney Metro, made the process more difficult for residents and small businesses.
Greens MP and committee chair Abigail Boyd says the acquisition process led to divorce, depression and addiction for some.
“Compulsory acquisition may just be a business transaction for this government but for the people impacted by this it’s something really emotional and significant,” she said at Parliament House today.
Labor’s roads spokesman John Graham says there were concerns in the past about acquisitions by the since absorbed Roads & Maritime Services, but the culture surrounding Sydney Metro acquisitions was worse.
The committee found Sydney Metro had not negotiated in good faith with residents in the western Sydney suburb of Orchard Hills.
“There is a need here to change the culture and the impact it’s having, particularly on residents whose homes are being acquired,” Mr Graham said.
7NEWS Australia YouTube Channel
Got a comment? Leave your thoughts in the comments section, below. Please note comments are moderated before publication.
With highest respect to Hon Abigail Boyld MLC and her Committee – the latest inquiry report has failed the critical fundamental acquisition issues in NSW as follows (based on my devastating experience – where my family’s land (15 lots) was stolen by NSWPlanning in 2008 when Hon Sartor was the Planning Minister):
1. Due to lack/absence of any accountability/transparency by the acquiring authorities – every step of the “due process” under JTCA 1991 is ‘disregarded’ – i.e. the decision-makers have “open cheque book” to write any amount as compensation based on their bias due to favouritism/discrimination/corruption.
2. The above (1.) is NEVER addressed/corrected by the relevant Ministers as it is – politically damaging to the party in power (then).
3. In our case – purely due to ‘discrimination’ – our land was acquired under a – completely different section (of the NSW Acquisition Act) for ‘identical’ request for acquisition under the HARDSHIP Provisions – accordingly, we were offered only half the compensation of the sum offered to the other applicant.
4. We were never offered any acquisition letters by NSWPlanning despite our land being frozen from all use by imposition of ‘conservation zone’ to enable ‘urban’ release’ of N-W Sydney region under SEPP Growth’s Policy 2006. When we learned that NSWPlanning has misled us to take our land without acquisition in breach of the ‘land-swap’ deal that Hon Sartor made in 2005 – NSWPlanning advised in writing that the ‘land-swap’ would be honoured whilst it – simultaneously submitted to Land and Environment Court that – it had no plans for any ‘land-swap’ for landowners whose lands have been frozen by conservation zoning. When I informed my lender (CBA) – they decalared that – the NSWPlanning’s changed position is “unacceptable” and consequently the borrowers (we) are in non-monetary default and threatened to foreclose on our home unless we pay the land debt. Then I held a meeting with Hon Sartor who told me to tell the bank _”to wait”. The bank then reminded me that the – mortgage contract is not with Hon Sartor but with your family and consequently you must pay the loan off or face foreclosure. When I sought compulsory acquisition on HARDSHIP grounds – NSWPlanning refused to acquire. Then I engaged a lawyer. In the meantime – Hon Ray Williams took our case to NSW Parliament without any success (re Hansard report). Eventually, our case went to Land and Environment Court. However, due to financial constraint – a solicitor appeared as an ‘advocate’ to meet the courts procedural requirement – accordingly all our vital evidence was not presented to the court and NSWPlanning’s ‘fabricated evidence’ remained unchallenged and we lost the case.
The key points of our case are as follows:
1. We bought the subject land based on – written advice that 1-acre (10-lot) parcel would be permitted 1-acre residential development pending full URBAN release.
2. We paid RESIDENTIAL RATE.
3. The subject land was “reserved” for URBAN release in 1966 – pending provision of relevant services for URBAN release.
4. In 2001 – s65 Certificate was issued for 1-acre (10-lot) RESIDENTIAL release.
5. In 2003 – Hon Sartor postponed 1-acre release in favour of – FULL URBAN release of entire Marsden Park lands following environmental/planning investigations.
6. The 2003 investigation found that – large acreage land holdings contained – ecological vegetation of highest significance and proposed to preserve them under a new scheme/zone called LRLZ (Local Rural Lifesytle Zone). However due to “political clout and financial muscle by these landowners – Hon Sartor abandoned LRLZ for acreage holdings. Instead, Hon Sartor targetd the battlers’s ‘Scheduled Lands’ of Blacktown (Marsden Park and Riverstone). Accordingly, a land-swap deal was made between NSWPlanning and affected landowers. Under the deal:
a. A third of Marsden Park would be “rezoned for ‘conservation’ (Environment Conservation Zone [ECZ]).
b. All ECZ affected owners would be allowed to use the land as ‘PERMITTED’ under Rural 1a Zone (then zoning).
c. Where a landowner’s PERMITTED use right is DISALLOWED for implementation of the proposed SEPP POLICY 2006 – the landowner MUST be given another similar sized land capable of URBAN use in exchange for the affected land.
Note: Rural 1a PERMITTED market gardening (Agricultural use). After we had installed 2×20,000 litres water tank and connected electricity and Sydney Water – the Council stopped any use/development by citing the development restrictions under the proposed SEPP POLICY 2006. When we informed NSWPlanning – it remained silent instead of honouring the – land exchange commitment as per the ‘land-swap” deal. This caused us to seek urgent compulsory acquisition as the Bank demanded we pay the loan because NSWPlanning had “frozen all use rights, would NOT honour the ‘land-swap’ deal and told Land and Environment Court that all ECZ-affected land would be ‘acquired over 25-30 year period.
For the record – since 2008, I have written multiple letters to ministers/Premiers (State and Federal) to my own representatives (State/Federal) – pleading for ‘justice’ and uphold of ‘rule of law’ principles’ – without any success.
I am holding volumes of correspondences and I will release to anyone who is interested in TRUTH/JUSTICE