Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2021 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 2 December 2020) . . Page.. 26 ..

The Clerk having announced that the terms of the petition would be recorded in Hansard and referred to the appropriate ministers for response pursuant to standing order 100, the petition was received.

Pursuant to standing order 99A, the petition, having more than 500 signatories, was referred to the relevant standing committee.

Ministerial responses

The following responses to petitions have been lodged:

Planning—Chisholm development—petition 12-20

By Mr Gentleman, Minister for Planning and Land Management, dated 7 September 2020, in response to a petition lodged by Ms J Burch on 13 August 2020 concerning proposed development in Chisholm.

The response read as follows:

Dear Mr Duncan

Thank you for your letter of 13 August 2020 providing petition No 12-20 lodged by Ms Joy Burch MLA regarding a proposed development at Block 44 Section 539 Chisholm.

Following the independent planning and land authority’s (the authority) decision to refuse the original development application for the proposed development (DA201935300), the proponent lodged a reconsideration application with the authority on 21 July 2020.

The process for community input into development applications is outlined in the Planning and Development Act 2007 (the Act).

The reconsideration application was the subject of major notification under the Act. All persons who made a representation on the original application were notified of the reconsideration application on 23 July 2020. The public notification period for the reconsideration application commenced on 28 July 2020 and ended on 17 August 2020, with the application published on the authority’s website for public comment during this time.

I am advised by the authority that 21 representations were received during the notification period (one of which included the petition).

The reconsideration application was assessed by the authority against the planning requirements set out in the Act and the Territory Plan, including consideration of all issues raised in representations.

I am informed by the authority that reconsideration application has been refused. Notice of the decision was provided to the applicant and everyone who made a representation on the reconsideration application.

I trust this information is of assistance.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video