Page 1924 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To answer Mr Pratt’s question in his little tirade about why such a facility could be on a site that was zoned as broadacre land use, we all voted for it in the territory plan. So did you, Mr Pratt. That is the plan. According to the territory plan the site is within a broadacre land use policy area and, as such, permits a major utility installation and a communications facility, subject, of course, to the provisions of the territory plan. As the proposal includes a major utility installation, as defined by the territory plan, it falls under the list of prescribed classes of defined decisions in appendix 2 of the territory plan, which requires a mandatory preliminary assessment.
To answer the second question and the second ridiculous point that Mr Pratt put in his speech that the assessment process for a project like this is no different than for a home renovation, I would challenge Mr Pratt to identify which home in the history of the ACT has required a preliminary assessment. I have asked that question because this issue has been raised before—that it is the same assessment process. It is not. It is a very different assessment process. A mandatory preliminary assessment is required for a project of this size. A home renovation does not require a mandatory preliminary assessment.
The purpose of the preliminary assessment is to identify the extent of potential environmental impacts. The PA and the DA were notified in accordance with the requirements of the land act. Again I respond to Mr Pratt’s point about notification. We had this debate in this place in relation to the new planning system. I will give credit to Dr Foskey: she raised this issue around what was appropriate notification.
The provisions in the act require adjoining leases to be notified. The question that you would have to ask if you were to extend it further is: how much further? At what point do you say you are no longer close enough to the project to be notified in writing that you should otherwise be notified by means of a public announcement through, for example, the Canberra Times or perhaps some other form of public notification, be it a sign on the site or some other form of communication? That is a matter for some debate, and we had that debate in relation to the new planning system. The Assembly again reached a position on that.
If the Liberal opposition wishes to revisit that and revisit the notification provisions, that is a debate that we can and should have. We are very happy to engage in that debate. But Mr Pratt voted for the notification system that is in place. For him to come in here and suggest that that was inadequate belies his own vote in this place.
The public inspection and comment on the PA and DA were extended to 27 May. Mr Gentleman made that request of me as planning minister. I agreed with Mr Gentleman’s assessment and recommendation. I agreed with that and extended the consultation period.
Subsequent to that, the proponents have requested changes to the proposal. These changes have been accepted by the Planning and Land Authority as an alteration to the current DA at the request of the applicant as is permitted under section 226 (7) of the land act. The transitional arrangements in the Planning and Development Act permit the alteration of an application lodged under the land act and require the DA to be determined according to the provisions of the land act and hence the pre
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .