Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1071 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

have a significant impact either on the amenity of an immediately adjacent residence, a neighbour, or on the suburb overall. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why you should simply say, "We are going to allow open standing, but not in relation to these amendments".

People have a right to say, "That is going to have a significant impact on my quality of life. That is going to have a significant impact on my home". The point Ms Tucker makes is correct. Whilst we talk about the amendments being minor, they may not be minor in any regard for the person who has to live with them for the next five, 10, 15, 20 or 25 years. Today, we are being asked to consider whether we should allow those people to have a say and appeal against them and let the matter be decided by an independent decision-maker. That is what we are asking for today. It is not an unreasonable ask. You are prepared to accept the argument in relation to clause 5 that the number of appeals is not going to be significant. The same argument applies in relation to this clause.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (4.47): Mr Speaker, much work has been done on this matter. I was pleased to have the acknowledgment of both Mr Moore and Mr Corbell at the introduction of their speeches that PALM has done much over the last couple of years to make sure that this provision works effectively and appropriately. If the amendment is not minor, it is subject to further approval. There is a judgment to be made here. The PALM staff are qualified to make that judgment. The improvement in the process over the last couple of years has been quite outstanding, quite extraordinary, and the staff are to be congratulated on the way that they have handled it. All this clause will do is place another hurdle where it is not required. The Government will oppose clause 4.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (4.48): Mr Speaker, I would like to add one other thing in response to Mr Corbell's comments. I think it is worth reminding members about what we call minor amendments. If you want to build a pergola - I think we refer to them as class 10s - you can actually do so with no planning approval at all.

Mr Corbell: Within certain constraints.

MR MOORE: Within certain constraints. There are things we do already that are done as minor changes. Once again, this operates within certain constraints and still requires the approval of PALM, except that what we are doing here is quite possibly stopping work going ahead for well up to a month for a minor issue. I think we have to be very careful about doing that while the process takes place. I do not see that we have need for a situation to be available for people to stop somebody's building work proceeding for a month over a minor matter when it is quite possible that a neighbour who is quite vexed about the building work has been through a process that has allowed for broad approval. I have made it very clear that we would want PALM to look at these matters very carefully, but there is no indication that they have not been doing so within the last 12 months or so.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .