This week saw another example of developer-driven planning. NDH Management has put forward a $100 million plan for the area called the Rocks, the series of ramshackle huts on the corner of Barry Drive and Marcus Clarke Street, between the city and the ANU. The Chief Minister, Kate Carnell, gave assurances there would be much consultation before the next step, but seemed to imply that NDH would be the developer. This is not the way to go about the development of the city.
It is true that the area desperately needs attention, and the sort of developments envisaged by NDH would be appropriate for the site. However, there is nothing so unique or brilliant about the NDH proposal that it could claim some sort of intellectual property over the idea.
The Government should have done it differently. It should have seen the need to develop the site and then called for general expressions of interest. Then the development should have gone to open, competitive tender or auction, or a series of tenders. Competition and level playing fields are much maligned by people who oppose the extremes of economic rationalism, but they are the most appropriate and efficient way of dealing with public assets like land and development rights.
The rest of the business community in Canberra should be rightly peeved at the Government’s most-favoured-developer approach. This is not an isolated incident. The same approach was taken with the Hardy’s vineyard proposal at the racecourse and the Shaw proposal for the Bunda Street carpark.
Are we now to surrender planning in the city to a process whereby developers look round for a chunk of public land, put in a development proposal and claim exclusive rights over it?
This approach carries other dangers. It is secretive, involves a transfer of public assets and does not put the deal to the test of other competitive offers. It invites the question: why was that particular developer favoured? The usual answer would be: because it offered a better price and/or a better product than its competitors. But if there are no competitors that answer cannot be given.
The answer cannot be that the proposal would create much-needed jobs, because the proposal would create the same number of jobs if it were done competitively. Indeed, done competitively the Government would get a better return on its public asset.
In the cases cited it may be that they were favoured just because they asked first. If so it is a poor reason for handing over public assets.
In this environment, it would be a mistake to give the Territory more control over public ACT land by cutting back on the National Capital Authority’s role, though that body has hardly distinguished itself if it is guilty of the petty red tape Mrs Carnell accuses it of with respect to the colour of pavers on Civic Square and other matters.
The rest of the Assembly is hardly any better. When Labor attacked the Government on planning, it used the examples of Futsal, the wedding chapel, the FAI Rally, 999-year leases, and the plan to cut back federal controls. There was no mention of most-favoured-developer tactics because Labor engaged in the same thing when in government. Unfortunately, the Greens and the Independents failed to contribute that day.
The lack of openness, competitiveness and efficiency in ACT planning matters is something the business and wider community should deplore.