Page 4 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 20 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
uncertainty to a number of development approval applications and decisions due to the unanticipated possibility of third party appeal. Such a reversal of the apparent legal position has the potential to detract from the certainty and continuity required for investor confidence in the ACT property sector and other sectors.
In summary, the bill that I have presented today aims to restore what was understood to be the legal position prior to the December decision of the Supreme Court. In so doing, the bill provides continuity in the regulatory environment for the property sector and the wider ACT community.
I would like to emphasise that the underlying need for these exemptions from third party appeal remains as compelling now as it was back in April 2006 when they were first notified. The exemptions were part of a series of measures and reforms to improve the development assessment process within Civic, town centres and industrial areas by a reduction of delay and costs and also by increasing the level of certainty in the decision making process. The intent is to facilitate development in these areas, which is of general benefit to the territory.
People who may be affected by particular development proposals are able to make submissions on individual proposals or relevant territory plan variations. The requirements for notification of some but not all development applications remain unchanged. The exemption does not affect the ability of people to take action under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989.
The exemptions were and remain in keeping with the government’s planning system reform project and in particular with the track-based assessment system that contemplates different procedures and appeal rights for different situations. Public consultation prior to the introduction of these measures last year indicated strong support from the property sector in particular for these measures.
I also recall that Mr Seselja, in the disallowance debate, considered that the reforms were beneficial but noted that the regulation may need to be amended “much more in the future” in relation to the use of third party appeals in the development assessment process. At that time, I advised Mr Seselja and other members that the government’s Planning and Development Bill addressed a range of issues relating to third party appeals and the assessment of development applications.
I turn briefly to some of the provisions of the bill. The bill affirms the ability of the territory to make the regulation that was found to be invalid by the Supreme Court and also similar regulations that are in doubt as a result of the reasons of the court. The main mechanism for this is in part 2, section 6 of the bill that amends section 282 of the land act. This section removes the relevant phrase “of a kind” from section 282 (1) (e) of the act and also inserts examples of the regulations that are intended to be authorised by this section. The phrase “of a kind” is also being deleted from section 282 (1) (f) of the land act. This section authorises the making of regulations to exempt specified controlled activities from the operation of one or more provisions in part 6 of the land act.
Mr Speaker, the bill has retrospective effect, with the amendments to section 282 applying not just to future regulations but also to all past regulations. This is the effect
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .