Page 1147 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore made some comments in relation to presumptive rights. It is unfortunate that Mr Moore is not in the chamber, but he referred to Professor Neutze. Is Mr Moore here?
Ms Follett: He is just up the back.
MR JENSEN: Right, there he is. He is in the chamber but not in the chamber, if you know what I mean. Professor Neutze said, in his report to the Langmore committee - and I quote from page 15:
Section 72A of the Real Property Ordinance 1925 allows a lessee to apply to the Minister to surrender a lease in exchange for another lease on the same site which permits its use for a different purpose. The surrender and regrant method has been used only for minor variations under CALO because the administering department has taken the view that it would be inappropriate to allow major variations since, unlike Section 11A, it provides no procedure for public notification and opportunity for objection. It might be an acceptable mechanism if development rights were subject to some separate planning control which made provision for public consultation, but is certainly not acceptable when lease conditions are the only form of land use control.
Quite clearly, the process that has been established and set up and provided for by the interim planning legislation, and also the draft legislation that we have before us at the moment, set up the format of that public consultation and discussion in relation to planning control. That is what the process that establishes the Territory Plan and any variations to it establishes. It puts it on the public record and it puts the arguments out in the community so that when, in fact, the situation arises, as it does even now for a draft variation, it very clearly says that, if people wish to make a change under the variation that is eventually approved, they have to go through a certain process. So, the community is able to comment on the changes to the legislation. I think that is an important factor, and it was probably one factor that was not present in any way, shape or form at the time because the NCDC, as it was then, had the ability to change policies at whim. It did not really have to consult; it could change those policies. I think that is a very important distinction in the situation we have at the moment.
One of the important aspects in relation to betterment that I think we have to get on the record is that the Government's definition of betterment, which will be prescribed in supporting regulations, will have the following aims. It is to take a full and fair share of the increase in value of a lease in the following three areas:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .