Page 1500 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The current powers available to the minister under the act, the so-called call-in powers, do have their limitations. There is no requirement for such decisions to be advertised publicly in advance and given to the Assembly before they take effect. In the government’s view, a much more transparent and public approach would be a great benefit for major projects or precinct areas that are of importance to the whole Canberra community. And this bill would have put such a process in place. The bill that was before the Assembly would have provided for greater transparency, efficiency and a systematic approach to dealing with major projects within the planning framework.
I would like the Assembly to note that other jurisdictions also have special project legislation in place. Jurisdictions including Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia all have in place mechanisms at the state level to recognise the priority projects of critical importance to the community. The government will be revising its bill and will bring a special projects bill back to this Assembly this year.
I would now like to respond to Mr Coe’s ill-conceived criticisms about the Planning, Building and Environment Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill was developed in response to concerns raised by the community about the appearance of a building once construction is complete. Currently the planning and development regulation allows the external materials and the appearance of a building to be changed during construction from what was nominated in the approved version. This change can only occur during construction if the change would have been considered to be exempt development if it were a stand-alone project undertaken once construction was complete.
There have been legitimate community concerns about this loophole in the legislation. Concerns have been raised with the government which suggest that in practice these types of departures from approved plans have proven highly problematic. Concerns suggest that the permitted changes can result in construction that differs noticeably in appearance from the development as approved and as was notified to the public. For example, the exterior wall of a residence might appear as stonework on the approved plans but be constructed with other material. The property fence might be approved as a Colorbond fence but end up being built as timber.
Clause 18 of the bill would have removed the ability to make such changes, ie, the builder would have to build as approved. In doing so, the clause would have ensured that the appearance of the development as built did not differ significantly from the development indicated in the building plans which had, in many instances, been publicly notified, provided to the public and subsequently approved through the development assessment process.
I see and I know that there are concerns raised in relation to this change by the MBA and HIA. But let us understand why this change was proposed. Buildings should be built as approved, and Mr Coe seems to be concerned about that. We will engage in further discussion with the industry about this matter. And we will bring back a revised provision following those discussions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video