Page 5647 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
environmental effects of the normal works associated with the construction of a sewer could be addressed through fairly standard merit track DA conditions.
The government is acutely aware that issues such as this are causing unnecessary delays in critical infrastructure and land release and therefore increased costs. This is particularly so in new residential areas.
The government listened to and shared these concerns, and in the latter half of 2009 the ACT Planning and Land Authority and the economic stimulus task force carried out a joint review of the schedule 4 EIS triggers. The current bill is the result of that review and of subsequent consultation on the exposure draft. I am therefore pleased to present the result of this work in the form of the bill to the Assembly.
The bill delivers important “finetuning” to the circumstances in which a development proposal will trigger an EIS. I believe that it gives a clearer focus to the original intent of the tiered assessment system embodied in the act passed by the Assembly in 2007. It will help ensure that only development proposals that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment will require an EIS, while routine works to deliver essential infrastructure and services to the community will still be thoroughly assessed in the merit track.
The bill amends schedule 4 of the act in the following ways. It clarifies a number of items by introducing greater precision in the expression of thresholds and reduces unnecessary duplication. The bill provides a more focused targeting of items to ensure only proposals that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact will need to be assessed in the impact track. And the bill removes a small number of items from the list altogether. The bill also makes a number of amendments to chapters 7 and 8 of the act that complement the changes to schedule 4.
I will now turn to some of the key elements of the bill. I have already indicated that the key consideration in whether a development proposal should require an EIS is whether it will have a significant adverse environmental impact. This is an important concept that is used frequently in the amended act. This concept is used in the current act in relation to section 124 which allows the minister to declare the impact track is applicable to a development proposal. To clarify the scope and application of a number of items in schedule 4, the bill broadens the applicability of this concept to schedule 4 and the act generally. The meaning of significant adverse environmental impact has not been changed but is set out more clearly in new section 124A.
In determining whether or not an impact is likely to be significant, a range of environmental factors must be considered, including the kind, size, frequency, intensity, scope and length of time of the impacts. The nature and significance of the affected environment must also be considered, particularly the sensitivity, resilience and rarity of the environmental function, system, value or entity likely to be affected.
The bill provides the flexibility for some development proposals which fall under schedule 4 to be assessed in the merit track where the Conservator of Flora and Fauna, or the Heritage Council for proposals involving heritage issues, consider the proposal is not likely to result in a significant adverse environmental impact.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video