Page 5356 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
... being a notice served within 7 days after the decision to review the draft Plan variation is made by the Authority -
which gives the authority a bit of flexibility in that area -
advise the person that documents referred to ... are available for public inspection.
This would draw the matter to the attention of those people who have been involved and have possibly put some considerable time and effort into the process. People may, for whatever reason, not be in town on the Saturday, and most people, of course, do not get the Gazette. As we know, it is a very specialised thing, with a very specialised readership. So, the only other opportunity that people would have to know about it would be to see this notice in the newspaper. It is quite possible that they will not see it, and they may wish to comment on it. So, all we are asking is that in such cases the authority be required to notify, by letter, that the process is back on track again.
I do not believe that that is a major impost. With the majority of variations that I have seen around the ACT, the number of comments received has been quite small. I think in most cases it ranges between eight and 15. On the odd occasion we have a draft variation where it is in excess of 100. I think we have seen that only twice. One was the Forrest bowling club proposal and the other, of course, was the school proposals.
So, what I am suggesting would not be a burden. We are not seeking to add any major costs to the process. We believe that it is quite appropriate for people to be advised. They then take the action that is necessary. In most cases, people will say, "Thank you very much for advising us. We are quite happy with the change. We do not wish to go any further. No further action is required". On that basis, the Planning Authority would probably be quite happy to proceed, because it would have re-established the process and people would have been advised.
But failure to do that, I would suggest, could mean that people with a major interest in the proposal may not be made aware of these very important changes. I think it is appropriate that we pass both of my amendments to clause 22. I understand that the Government will accept my new subclauses (6) and (7). I believe that it will not accept new subclause (8). On that basis, I will allow others to make their comments on this important issue.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.49): Mr Speaker, this is a classic case of the Residents Rally not knowing when to stop. I am convinced, looking at the sequence of events on this clause alone, that Mr Jensen has a bunch of little gnomes - and I think I could put some names to them - sitting in a back room somewhere and churning out
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .