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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2084 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

One other issue I wish to raise relates to the regulations in Subordinate Law No 2 of 2000, which the minister tabled when this bill was tabled. Those regulations related to exempt structures and they significantly loosened the requirements on what structures would be classified as exempt structures. The period for disallowance of these regulations is well past. However, I think it is appropriate to put it on the record that I remain concerned about the consequences of these changes. My colleagues and I were not prepared to say that these changes should not take place, but it is important to signal that if these changes result in a proliferation of exempt structures such as garages and pergolas in backyards we will certainly be looking at some mechanism to try to tighten those requirements up again. I know the argument from PALM is that these things are built anyway without permission, but that is not necessarily a reason to exempt them from the regulations. To that extent, it is a matter that we will continue to pay very close attention to.

Overall, these changes appear to be sensible. They appear to provide for a better streamlining of the process, and we will be supporting this bill.

MS TUCKER (9.47): This bill makes a number of changes to the land act, supposedly to make the development approval processes more efficient. While I support the removal of inefficient administrative practices that do not contribute anything to the proper scrutiny of development proposals, I do not support the removal of those elements of so-called red tape that are there to give residents a say in what is built in their neighbourhoods.

Planning should be about balancing the interest of developers with the public interest. Developers should never be under the impression that they have a right to build whatever they like and that resident opposition is just a hindrance to their plans. They need to remember that once a building is constructed and the developer has made the profit, the rest of the community has to suffer the impacts of that building for decades after.

Unfortunately, too much planning in this town is still developer driven and not enough strategic planning is being done to direct the growth of this city in an ecologically and socially sustainable manner. I am always suspicious when the government puts forward changes to the land act, as they often include changes to make it easier for developments to get approved and involve the removal of appeal rights by residents. However, in the case of this bill, generally the changes proposed will help in streamlining the development approval process without a loss of community input. For example, I can see some benefit in allowing for better coordination of Territory Plan variations, environmental assessments and development applications for the same development proposal, as usually the same issues come up in each of these currently separate processes.

The streamlining of the notification procedures also seems reasonable. For example, notification of adjoining properties which are owned by the applicant will not be required, and notification of decisions will be forwarded only to those people who have put in objections. The restoration of orders against persons who fail to comply with their lease or development agreement is also necessary and should never have been removed in the first place.

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