Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2010) . . Page.. 2279 ..
Mr Stanhope: I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.
Supplementary answers to questions without notice
MR BARR: Yesterday in question time Ms Le Couteur asked how ACTPLA would deal with the development application for a development which is inconsistent with the objectives of a zone as described in the territory plan but is an allowable assessable development within that zone.
ACTPLA have advised that the territory plan describes the objectives of a zone. For instance, the zone objectives for the zone CZ4, a local centre zone, are to provide for convenience retailing and other accessible convenience shopping and community and business services to meet the daily needs of local residents; to provide opportunities for business investment and local employment; to ensure the mix of uses is appropriate to this level of commercial hierarchy and enables centres to adapt to change in social and economic circumstances; to maintain and enhance local, residential and environmental amenity through appropriate and sustainable urban design; and to promote the establishment of a cultural and community identity that is representative of and appropriate to the place.
The territory plan lists permissible uses within a zone. I take it, Madam Assistant Speaker, that this is what you meant when you referred to allowable assessable developments. For instance, permissible uses within the CZ4 local centre zone include car park, consolidation, demolition, guest house, indoor entertainment facility, indoor recreation facility, industrial trades, light industry, minor use, parkway and pedestrian plaza, restaurant, recyclable materials collection, service station or shop.
A development application for a lease variation—that is, for an expansion of the uses for a particular lease—is assessed by ACTPLA under section 120 of the act including considering representations received, the suitability of the site and the objectives of the zone.
Madam Assistant Speaker, your question assumed that the only basis for refusing a development application would be that it conflicts with the objectives of the zone and your question assumed that the only conflict could arise if there were indeed conflict between the objectives of a zone and permissible uses in a zone. ACTPLA advised this is not the case. ACTPLA can consider representations received as well as the suitability of the site within the zone when assessing a development application for a lease variation.
Whilst I would seek to avoid commenting on a particular application, I will say that in relation to the matter which I believe you are alluding to—the assessment that ACTPLA is currently undertaking—were such a lease variation to be approved, any change of use that changes the building class or substantial building works would then still require a further development approval. In your supplementary question, Madam Assistant Speaker, you asked how ACTPLA can assess the impact of a lease purpose change proposal when the descriptions are so broad.