Page 1901 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
amendments to the act that will clarify the requirements for pre-lodgement, proponent-led consultation on certain developments.
But I need to state clearly that the government will not support amendments that undermine the intention of the track-based development assessment system. The track-based assessment, which is based on the development assessment forum’s leading practice model, was adopted unanimously by the Assembly to ensure a simpler, faster and more effective approach to development applications. Development applications are channelled into tracks, depending on the type of development and its compliance with the rules of the territory plan or its application of the criteria.
At its core, the leading practice model ensures that the level of assessment of a proposal is commensurate with its complexity, without compromising the quality of decision making. This is also true for the level of public notification that a development application requires: the bigger the likely impact of the development, the more extensive the notification of the proposal.
However, the draft amendments that I have seen that have been proposed by Ms Le Couteur I do not believe have regard to these fundamental principles of the planning system, particularly in relation to the amendments that are proposed for the code track notification. I think it is worth noting that there are currently no developments that utilise this track.
Much of the development that would have been channelled into the code track, such as single dwellings, has been deemed exempt development and does not require development approval. I think it is an important principle that we do not unfairly burden this track in case it is required in the future. The code track is designed to be fast. The proposal either meets all the rules in the code and is approved or it does not meet all the rules and is refused. It does not require any notification because the rules of the code provide certainty of development outcomes to the community and the proponent.
To suggest that the code track should require some form of public notification undermines the intention of this track and the track-based assessment system more broadly. It would unfairly raise the expectation that there is an opportunity to comment on the proposal or influence the development, when there is none. If a development meets all the rules, there is no scope for subjective assessment—it is either yes or no, a tick or a cross. To subject the proposal to notification and public comment will also undermine the certainty that the rules provide to proponents, who have sought to streamline their proposals by adding an additional 10 days to their assessment period.
But I appreciate that for developments where there is no requirement for notification, such as those within the code track or exempt developments, there is a need to alert the community that building is happening. That is why the government is drafting amendments, which will be introduced in the second PABLAB later this year, which would require a notice to be erected on all blocks where building work was occurring. In the case of code-assessable or exempt development, this will provide, if you like, a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video