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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2082 ..

Debate resumed from 2 March 2000, on motion by Mr Smyth:

MR CORBELL (9.36): The Labor Party will be supporting this bill this evening. The issue of planning and development is always a controversial issue in Canberra. I am sure that most members in this place receive representations from time to time which highlight some of the difficulties with some of the more complex and more onerous requirements of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991. The Land (Planning and Environment) Act is by nature a complex act. Planning is a complex business. But there are times when there are opportunities for refinement of the planning laws, and I think this bill presents overall a positive opportunity.

I was very surprised to hear about six or eight months ago that there was a requirement in the land act for someone who was proposing a development application, if they owned the property immediately adjacent to them, to notify themselves of what they were planning to do and that the 28-day period had to elapse for comments and they had the opportunity to respond to what they were doing on the block next door. This is one of the examples which this bill rectifies, and we certainly welcome that.

Philosophically, Labor has always taken the view that planning should be a transparent and easy-to-understand process. We also feel that there is a need to provide for greater certainty in the planning process, but not, I should stress, at the expense of accountability or the protection and the advancement of the public interest.

That said, there is a strong argument for providing for a planning process that allows for businesses and other proponents of development applications to know that the more hurdles they jump over, the closer they are to reaching their goal and the closer they are to being sure that their development application is going to be approved. There is a substantial outlay by anyone in a development application process. Preparing an application and providing the information that they have to provide costs them money. Obviously, they should have some certainty that the more they are investing, the better their opportunity of getting their development application passed through the appropriate processes.

I should stress that we must make a very clear distinction between the development application process and the Territory Plan process. Development applications allow for the approval of developments which are consistent with the existing land use, whereas Territory Plan variations propose to change the land use. Proposing to change the land use is a far more complex and a far more detailed process which warrants, ultimately, the sanction of this place. We do not for a moment resile from that process. Indeed, we used that process last year in relation to the proposed Federal Golf Club development which required a land use change.

Stepping down from land use, the next order of importance is the development application which is consistent with land use. We feel that there is some opportunity for improving and streamlining the process. The amendment bill the minister has introduced today appears to resolve some of the somewhat strange incongruities in the land act.

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