Page 5649 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have mentioned that the bill removes a few items from schedule 4 altogether. One of these items applies when an application is made for the deconcessionalisation of a lease. Such development applications are currently assessed in the impact track and cannot be decided unless the minister considers that it is in the public interest to approve the application.
The amended schedule 4 removes deconcessionalisation from the impact assessment track. This reflects the fact that the implications of deconcessionalisation in itself are chiefly social and economic and do not warrant the time and cost of a major examination of environmental matters. Removal of this item from the schedule means that an application for deconcessionalisation will be assessed in the merit track.
However, to ensure that such applications are still fully assessed, new section 139(2)(l) of the bill requires such applications to include an assessment of the social, cultural and economic impacts of the deconcessionalisation. The factors that the minister must take into account in considering whether a decision on such an application is in the public interest have also been clarified.
Another item removed from the schedule is correctional institutions. Again, the issues with this type of development are generally not environmental and can be thoroughly assessed in the merit track. I stress that the shift to merit will not mean that a development proposal will not be subject to environmental impact assessment or that it will not be assessed thoroughly. Development applications assessable in the merit track must include a statement assessing the proposal against the relevant rules and criteria in the territory plan.
Applications that come under the non-urban zones development code in the territory plan must include a formal statement of environmental effects. This code, which applies to developments in the rural, broadacre, river corridor, mountains and bushland, hills, ridges and buffer zones, must address the possible environmental effects of the development, taking into account the size and significance of the impacts.
ACTPLA must assess the development application against the code rules and merit criteria of the territory plan and against the applicable factors and criteria set out in sections 119 and 120 of the act. This includes assessment of the probable impact of the proposed development, including the nature, extent and significance of those environmental impacts.
In addition, a development application in the merit track will, in some cases, also require assessment of its potential impacts under other legislation such as the Public Health Act 1997 or the Environment Protection Act 1997. And, of course, merit applications are publicly notified and open to public comment.
The act also retains the current provisions that allow either the Minister for Planning or the minister for public health to require an EIS for a proposed development if the minister considers it will have a significant adverse impact on the environment or public health. This is an important power that ensures that an unusual or problematic
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video