Page 340 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There were two concurrent processes associated with the redevelopment of these four blocks in Torrens Street. The first was a variation to the prevailing planning policies for the area. This was finalised in December 1992. The second was a consolidation of the four blocks into one lease to allow for a medium density development. A decision was made on the leasing aspects on 10 February this year.
The planning variation is a process that includes open notification, the opportunity to comment, an assessment of those comments, a presentation to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee of this Assembly, and approval of the plan by this Assembly. Objectors had an opportunity to give evidence to the Assembly committee and were represented by a neighbour, Mr Dickson. The lease variation process under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 normally includes appeal rights for people who have objected to the proposal during the public notification stage, as well as for the proponent.
In accordance with the Act, the variation to the Territory Plan included a provision, which was brought to the attention of the PDI Committee, that, where an application for a lease variation is accompanied by a development proposal complying with the provisions of the plan variation, no third party appeal rights apply. There are no appeal provisions in this sort of case because the approval of the development was encompassed in the planning variation which had the support of the Assembly. I am sure members would agree that it would be inappropriate to have a court override an Assembly decision of this nature. Sections 7 and 276 of the Land Act give the legislative authority for that course of action.
There have been at least three opportunities during this process for individuals to state their views on the redevelopment proposal: Firstly, through the public notification process associated with the variation to the planning policy; secondly, through the public notification process associated with the lease variation proposal; and, finally, by submission to the Assembly PDI Committee during its consideration of the proposed plan variation. Individuals can also put their views to members of the Assembly at the time a plan variation is tabled in the Assembly, in an attempt to influence the debate. If, after all, a plan variation is approved, it seems reasonable to me to allow a complementary and directly related lease variation to proceed without the intervention of the courts.
The final step in the approval process is design and siting. Under the design and siting legislation, public notification and appeal processes are required in residential development if the development does not comply with the quantitative standards of the development conditions annexed to the plan variation. In this case, the developer has proposed a development which meets those standards. I accept that, having set the rules for quantitative standards of design and siting, it is inappropriate to provide appeal mechanisms to third parties where a development meets those standards. This has been the Government's position, and neither governments nor courts should attempt to control individual design.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .