Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (17 February) . . Page.. 229 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

importantly the ACT community, have called for over recent years. In brief, the amendments to the regulations reflect many of the outcomes of the several reviews of the development assessment and lease administrations functions under the Land Act.

In particular, they will achieve the following important improvements: Concurrent notification and processing of development applications, preliminary assessments and Territory Plan variations will be more possible. I think that is a key objective not only of the community but also of the industry. Notification requirements and third party appeals will be reduced in the case of minor residential developments, class 10 structures - that is, carports, sheds, pergolas, et cetera - some signs, some lease variations, public works and new residential estates.

A wider range of class 10 structures will be exempted from approval requirements, consistent with initiatives taken around Australia. The Commissioner for Land and Planning will have the power to grant extensions of time for certain development applications. That was overlooked in the 1996 amendments to the regulations. Notification of decisions on development applications will be limited to the applicant and persons who lodged the submissions, avoiding the needless expense of notifying those who have not expressed an interest in the proposal. Irritating self-owner notification will be eliminated. At present the applicant must notify all adjoining leases, even if that actually involves the applicant. Notification procedures and appeal rights have been simplified and enhanced in relation to deemed refusals where the relevant authority has failed to make a decision within the prescribed six or 12 months' limit.

Mr Speaker, if this Assembly is to realise its expectation that government agencies will do more and do better without increased funding, then we must be prepared to support initiatives for streamlining and simplifying processes. These amendments are initiatives of just that kind and, whilst increasing efficiency, do not diminish appropriate community input. PALM has, over the past few years, shown its readiness to change its responsiveness to industry and the community and to improve the effectiveness of its development management role. For the first time in some years, both industry and the community are acknowledging that PALM has made significant and visible improvements, and that they encourage further progress. Those amendments will assist that progress.

I urge members not to see the proposed changes in a negative light. It would be convenient to argue, as usually happens, that they compromise the rights of the members of the community or that they unduly favour developers. Neither of those things is true. The amendments simply recognise the need to develop a more efficient and effective assessment system, which can only be achieved through streamlining and simplifying what we would all agree is a very complex and confusing process. Mr Speaker, there is no subplot, no hidden meaning to these amendments. They respond to the ever-increasing pressure to do better. It is our responsibility to assist processes to improve and move forward, and we should all take this opportunity to do so.

Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell ) adjourned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .