Page 5652 - Week 15 - Thursday, 10 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
three tracks for assessable development: code track, which is the lowest track, involving a minimal level of assessment; merit track; and impact track. The impact track requires the maximum or highest level of assessment.
As a result of comments received, the bill relaxes this rule on changes to development approvals. The new rule permits changes even if the modified development proposal would need to be assessed in a different assessment track to the original proposal, provided that track is lower than the original track. For example, if the modified development proposal would be assessable in the code track and the original proposal was assessed in the higher, merit track, then the change would be permissible. In such a case the modified proposal would be less substantial than the original and so the assessment of the original, in conjunction with the assessment of the modification, would still be appropriate to the modified proposal.
However, if the modified proposal would be assessable in the merit track and the original proposal was assessed in the lower, code track, then the change would not be permissible. This is because in this case the modified proposal would be more substantial than the original proposal and the assessment of the original would no longer be appropriate.
The revised rules on changes to approvals will still ensure that the level of assessment applied to the original development proposal remains appropriate. The process will not be able to be used as a backdoor method for bypassing the assessment track required by the territory plan, and this matter is covered in clause 41.
I now turn to other areas where the bill differs from the exposure draft as a result of comments received. The bill differs from the exposure draft in that it makes it clear that the clarification of the definition of a concessional lease in the bill has retrospective effect. This change is reflected in clause 47.
The bill also differs from the exposure draft in the wording of provisions relating to the assessment of development applications and existing use. The underlying purpose of these amendments remains the same, however. The intention is to make it clear that a development application for a new building does not require reassessment or revisiting of the existing use of land if that use was already authorised by an existing lease. These matters relate to clauses 9 to 11. The Law Society and the Property Council both suggested these provisions could be clearer, and as a result a number of changes were made, including the addition of examples.
While the Property Council might consider the provisions are still too complex, I do note that this is an inherently complex area of law relating to land administration. I note also that the Law Society raised the possibility of more extensive change. However, in the government’s view, this is not warranted and would be beyond the scope of this bill.
ACTPLA has replied to those organisations which commented on the bill and thanked them for their comments. The reply details the changes made in response to comments and the reasons why some suggestions were not taken up at this stage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video