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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (22 August) . . Page.. 3169 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

this concern. Mr Rugendyke's bill proposes a significant improvement to the operation of our development assessment system and I think it deserves appropriate consideration. For this reason, as I said, the government supports the principle expressed in the bill.

There are, however, some other matters that the government believes should be addressed, and the government's amendments which have been circulated in the chamber seek to do that. I will speak to those amendments a little later on when the detail stage is reached.

Mr Speaker, the amendments relate to the question of what information should be included in a survey certificate which it is the obligation of an applicant to obtain, and the way in which that information should be presented in legislation or subordinate legislation. I believe that the survey requirements should certainly be imposed where it is considered necessary to preserve the amenity of neighbours and to advise those who may be disadvantaged by the absence of relevant information. The bill will not only address the concerns expressed about redevelopment in residential areas, it will also assist generally in improving the quality of all development applications and informing anyone who may be affected by a development proposal.

However, because of the broad application of the survey requirement, it might in some situations be desirable to allow exemptions. Mr Speaker, the act allows the regulations to exempt certain classes of development for the operation of provisions of part 6, and that would in effect allow regulations to be made that would exempt some redevelopment applications from requirements for a survey. Examples of such exemptions might involve minor developments such as small extensions or signs, public work construction outside residential areas, or certain class 10 structures such as carports or pergolas. Those regulations will be disallowable by the Assembly, and it would be more appropriate to debate the question of any exemptions at the time that those regulations are made rather than the legislation itself.

I want to flag at this point, Mr Speaker, the government's possible support for exemptions in limited and clearly defined circumstances. If there are such exemptions, as I have said, they will be tabled in the Assembly. It is worth noting that PALM may already, and sometimes does, require survey particulars in relation to development proposals, depending on the circumstances. The effect of this bill as amended is that it would be mandatory for all non-rural development where there was a redevelopment under way.

It may also please Mr Rugendyke to know that PALM, in conjunction with the introduction of the development assessment process of mandatory criteria for quality design and sustainability, is already developing detailed requirements for the provision of a site analysis plan with development applications. From 1 July applicants for most developments have been required to include such a plan with their applications. PALM had intended to introduce the provision of site analysis plans through form requirements using existing provisions in the act. However, this bill will serve to make the survey requirements legally enforceable.

I urge members to support the bill, and I also encourage them to support the amendments which the government is going to put forward in the detail stage.

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