Page 1494 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
place in 2003—agreed to these changes. It put in place a process and, as an Assembly, we expect we will continue to do so for other centres in coming years.
The question again to ask is: what message are we communicating to the community, landholders, investors and service providers if we are then going to turn around on each individual development application that might cause some concern and start to question the basis of the entire master plan policy setting? The adoption by the government and the Assembly of the national development assessment forum leading practice model for development assessment reflected the need to actively engage the community in the preparation of land use and development policies.
To be clear, the government consults and actively engages the community on the development and determination of the policy setting and the land use policies that engender the development and growth of Canberra. Once these policies are adopted, they become the basis on which the independent Planning and Land Authority assesses development applications. In my view, once the policy settings are made, the assessment of individual development applications, individual proposals, should be against those policies.
Part of Mr Coe’s motion calls on the government to develop and clarify a policy for who is responsible for consulting with the community about development proposals and the sale of land. So let me be clear: the Planning and Development Act, passed unanimously by this Assembly, sets out how development applications are notified by ACTPLA and how development applications are assessed. This includes taking into account any public submissions received in response to the notification.
The Planning and Building Legislation Amendment Bill that I introduced to this place last week seeks to further clarify the language used for the notification in relation to development applications and to remove what I think has been highlighted as a confusion that is caused with the current use of the word “consultation” in this context. Again to be clear, it is ACTPLA’s statutory role to notify the relevant sections of the community that a development application has been submitted to them and to invite submissions on that proposal, to give the community the necessary information so it can raise any concerns or express support for the proposed development.
Let us be clear again. ACTPLA’s role is not to advocate on behalf of developers for development applications, nor is it ACTPLA’s role to consult on behalf of developers for their development applications. ACTPLA’s role is to notify the community and to critically and impartially assess any development application. In my view, for ACTPLA to do any more than this has the potential to compromise its statutory role as the independent assessor. I note in all of the public commentary around these issues that there has been a fair amount of commentary to suggest that ACTPLA is too close to the development industry. I think it is important to send a message that it is the role of the proponent to consult with the community on the proposed development and it is the role of the proponent to advocate for the development.
As has been debated in the public arena in recent weeks, there is no doubt—and I agree with Mr Coe and a number of other people who have commented on this—that developers and the property industry have to do a better job of engaging with the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video