Page 3933 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 15 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These are significant amendments that make the development assessment process considerably more efficient by removing the need for unwarranted DA amendment applications. These amendments also make the development assessment process more efficient by removing the need for unwarranted agency referral and public notification for those DA amendment applications that are still required. Together, these amendments will significantly reduce the time and cost of the approval process for homeowners and industry, and also make the most efficient use of limited government assessment resources.
To conclude, these amendments demonstrate the government’s continued efforts to ensure a development approval process that is rigorous but also practical and efficient. As I mentioned earlier, the bill makes a number of amendments which I will leave for a separate presentation. I sincerely commend the Planning and Development Amendment Bill 2009 to the Assembly.
MS BURCH (Brindabella) (11.21): I am pleased to speak in support of the Planning and Development Amendment Bill 2009. As has been made clear, this bill makes permanent a number of temporary modifications to the Planning and Development Act 2007 that have already been made by regulation. These modifications are currently in schedule 20 of the Planning and Development Regulation 2008. My colleagues have talked to a number of points in this bill, but I am going to take the opportunity to remind members of the aims of this legislation and of the broader outcomes it will have, and is already having, for the community.
After a comprehensive community and industry consultation and policy development program, the government put its new planning system in place in March 2008. In doing this the government delivered on its promise, made in 2004, to reform an outdated planning system. The reforms set in place in March 2008 were extensive and fundamentally changed many aspects of our planning system. I do not propose to go through them again. Suffice it to say, though, that the measures included adoption of the leading practice development assessment track system; a restructured territory plan to replace some 87 different planning instruments; a new system for environmental assessment of major projects; more efficient and effective processes for territory plan variations; more efficient and flexible administrative systems through better integration of leasehold and planning systems; and more transparent and effective compliance mechanisms.
There is one feature of the new system that I would like to emphasise, and that is its flexibility—its ability to adapt, sometimes at short notice. The new system includes an ability to make minor technical refinements to the territory plan relatively quickly, to allocate development to different assessment processes—that is, code, merit or impact tracks—and the ability to exempt development from the need to obtain approval altogether.
The initial reforms also put into place a more efficient administrative system able to adapt to changing priorities. The last 18 or so months since implementation of the new system have demonstrated the worth and importance of this flexibility. During this time the new system has been tested by a number of difficult challenges. These challenges included concerns of industry about some delays in development
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .