Media Mentions

Kirsty Ruddock, Principal Solicitor, EDO

The case: In judicial review proceedings in the Land and Environment Court, Australians for Sustainable Development, a coalition opposed to the Barangaroo developments, is challenging the Minister for Planning's decision to approve the first of two projects, relating to excavations for what will be the main building and car park. It focuses on contaminated land issues and whether they've been adequately considered.

Your background: I've been principal solicitor for nearly five years, and was previously in the EDO in north Queensland. I worked in the Pacific for two years prior to that, at the Attorney General's Department in Samoa and the Public Solicitors in the Solomon Islands. Before that, I was at the Australian Government Solicitor.

Your reflections on the case:

This is one of a long list of controversial cases on Part 3A developments. Changes in planning laws saw the power to determine developments of state or regional significance, including high rise, moved from local councils to the Minister for Planning and Department of Planning There was a whole series of modifications to the original Barangaroo concept plan — chosen in competition — including increasing the site by a further 15 per cent and changes to the density. This controversy is about so many things: there's a range of organisations, planners, architects, people concerned about transport issues, public housing residents, community groups concerned about intrusions on the harbour, and heritage and environmental concerns. It's a judicial review case, and wouldn't stop the development if we were to win, but would ensure the minister would have to go back and properly assess issues of contamination. There is major contamination in the groundwater. The court cases are making the process more accountable. If the approvals were set aside, they could lodge a new approval. Later, we might challenge the whole plan. Most groups want some development on the site, but for it to be done in the most sustainable way, in accordance with best design and planning practice. We'll see, we fight the good fight and hope to get somewhere with it. There should be a good public debate, not a fait accompli design with vested interests.

How did the media treat the case?

It's the kind of court case that's quite technical and hard to report. Judicial review issues are sometimes hard for media coverage. There's been quite a lot of interest over some period of time, not in the case, but Barangaroo. The issue with the court case is whether they go the distance. The Sydney Morning Herald's Matthew Moore has been fantastic. The media in the case is hugely important. Without the campaigns and the attention, we won't get the problems solved.