Page 1258 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
facilitate a DA, that DA does in fact have a very good chance of success. Once the territory plan is varied according to a proposed DA, if that DA is no longer current, it may, in effect, allow many unintended consequences to take place at that site because of the territory plan variation which has gone through. In contrast to the DA which is dependent upon the territory plan variation, the territory plan variation is not necessarily dependent upon the DA. Therefore there is, I believe, a risk that some territory plan variations could go through for a specific proposal that may not eventuate and therefore may lead to unintended outcomes.
The bill also introduces a new process to allow a technical variation to the territory plan where a development would encroach on unleased territory land or land leased by the territory. In cases where a development would encroach on territory land by less than 20 metres, the proponent can apply for a declaration that the encroachment would, if approved, deliver good planning outcomes. If the declaration is made, then the territory plan can be varied through a technical amendment. However, the technical amendment will have a longer consultation period than usual technical amendments because it may involve a change to the zoning of the land. The development application will be available for consultation at the same time and it would require a period of 35 days of public notification.
Again, we call on the government to be very prudent with this new power. If, for instance, the block on which a 20-metre extension was sought was very small, that 20 metres could in effect double or even triple the size of a block. To that end we hope that the minister and the government will use their discretion very wisely and very cautiously in terms of granting this additional land and additional zoning. If, in effect, if does double or triple the size of a block, that is not what I believe is the intention of this clause here today. The intention of this clause is, in effect, to give an incidental amount of land to an existing block, not a substantial amount of land that would therefore change the capacity of the proposal in a major way.
We are pleased that the government has recognised an improvement in the way that the planning system operates in the ACT. Whilst the bill has some issues, which I have raised, I think by and large it is for the best. However, I still believe that comprehensive reform in the planning system is required. The government should commit to a full review of the territory plan and the associated legislation. Unfortunately, instead of a comprehensive review and a holistic review, we keep seeing this tinkering regarding the territory plan and also regarding the associated legislation and that does lend itself to unintended outcomes. We believe that it would be much better to assess the whole planning system, make any widespread changes required and also ensure that there is consistency. In conclusion, the opposition is happy to support the legislation being proposed by the government.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.12): The Planning and Development Act 2007 is the principal piece of planning legislation for the territory. It sets out, amongst other things, how land can be used, how environmental matters are managed and how development proposals are assessed. The planning and land authority has monitored the operation of the act, and has identified opportunities for efficiencies in the area of draft territory plan variations, environmental matters and development assessment. The bill implements the identified efficiencies by allowing certain planning processes to occur concurrently.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video