Page 3691 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (4.41): Madam Speaker, I welcome the debate on these Bills today, the origin of which began in the deliberations of the Assembly's Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee on the Territory Plan - a fact that Mr Lamont reminded us of a few minutes ago. It is worth returning to report No. 12 of the Planning Committee and recalling the comments made in the report about the existing, and still current, planning appeals process. I quote from page 16 of report No. 12 of the Planning Committee on the Territory Plan:
102. A number of concerns have been raised about the current planning appeals system, following the introduction of new requirements under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991.
103. Community and environmental groups have talked about the implied costs and formality of the system reducing their ability to use it effectively. Builders are reluctant to use it because of the delays which involve them in onerous penalties associated with holding costs ('justice delayed is justice denied').
104. It is clear to the Committee that the majority of complaints relate to disagreements which are matters of fact rather than matters of law. People are unhappy with decisions which result in their views being blocked, their privacy reduced or their amenity reduced in other ways. Alternatively, applicants wish to contest a refusal by the Authority which relies on these arguments. The Committee considers that these and related matters - which include urban design controls and the appropriate land use and carparking provision - are best decided by an expert appellate body operating in an informal setting. This would encourage the proponents, objectors and planners to make direct representations rather than requiring them to be represented. It would also facilitate a cheaper and more expeditious process.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that the provisions of these Bills address these issues and concerns effectively. I am especially pleased that the Government has responded promptly to the issues raised by the committee, and that we are therefore debating this legislation at the time that the new Territory Plan is coming into being.
I have only one regret, Madam Speaker, with regard to the Land (Planning and Environment) (Amendment) Bill (No. 4), and that is that the language used to describe this simple, straightforward and more accessible appeals process appears to me to be excessively convoluted and difficult to understand. It seems that, in replacing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with the Land and Planning Appeals Board, we have kept much of the same language that outlines the functions of that more legal process. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I do welcome this initiative, and I will reserve further comments for the debate at the detail stage of the consideration of these Bills.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.44): Madam Speaker, I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on these Bills, and in particular to talk about the question of involvement of lawyers. Proposed new section 282W does limit the capacity of a person to obtain legal representation. It is on the basis of complexity of the matter, or the age or state of health of the party, or a lack of command of English by the party that a person might seek the permission of the chairperson of the appeals board to obtain legal representation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .