Page 3931 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 15 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
For example, clause 6 was introduced through Planning and Development Amendment Regulation 2008 (No 4) and has been in operation since September 2008. The provisions in the bill are a near-literal translation of the provision as it appeared in the regulation that made the modification, except for some minor variations for clarity and drafting purposes. Because the bill translates these act modifications as permanent amendments to the act, schedule 20 of the Planning and Development Regulation needs to reflect these changes. This bill will result in there being no provisions listed in schedule 20, making it redundant. The bill therefore amends the Planning and Development Regulation to remove schedule 20.
I will now turn to the substantive content of the bill and summarise a number of key provisions. Many of the amendments are technical, to improve processes or clarify an existing provision. The amendments cover the following areas: amendments to already granted development approvals; lease variations in designated areas; conversion of commonwealth leases from national land to territory land; development assessment processes including transitional provisions; granting of leases and payment; extension of time to commence or complete building and development; and a number of transitional matters.
I will comment on the provisions related to the assessment of applications to amend development approvals. I will leave the balance of the provisions for a separate summary.
I now turn to perhaps the most significant amendments in this bill: clauses 7, 8 and 9. My comments here relate to clause 9 of the bill. Clause 9 should be read with clauses 7 and 8, which make minor changes consequent upon the main clause, clause 9.
Monitoring the operation of the new Planning and Development Act and consultation with the industry highlighted a difficulty that applies in the following scenario. A homeowner or other builder obtains development approval based on a certain building design and then commences construction. During the process of construction, the need for a minor design change to the location of a window, door or wall might become apparent or the construction might accidentally exceed a height or a setback limit by a few millimetres. In these situations, the homeowner would have to apply for an amendment of the development application. This might require repeated public notification and agency referral as well as formal assessment.
Experience suggests that minor adjustments of this nature do not warrant the delay and the cost involved in an amendment application. Any significant delay in obtaining the relevant DA amendment can result in delayed lawful occupation of completed buildings, which adds to development holding costs. Under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991, the repealed act, such contraventions and variations were readily regularised by way of a DA amendment after the fact. Such amendments, depending on their nature, were approved relatively quickly. The Planning and Development Act does not permit this, as it rightly affirms a need for public notification and agency referral for DA amendments. While this principle is fine for significant amendments, experience suggests that it is not appropriate for minor changes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .