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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2086 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

"(1A) The Minister may, by notice published in a daily newspaper, extend or further extend a period allowed under subsection (1) for the objection to the grant of an approval of an application.

"(1B) The power under subsection (1A) may be exercised after the expiry of the period to be extended.".

These amendments are to different clauses of the bill but all relate to the same subject, which is the amount of time allowed for people to put in comments on, or objections to, draft variations to the Territory Plan, preliminary environmental assessments and the relevant applications.

At present the act allowed 21 days, or three weeks, for people to provide comments on these documents. The bill changes this number of days to 15 business days, but in my amendment I have extended the period of objections from three weeks to four weeks, or 20 business days. It should be noted that in relation to the development application this extension only applies to applications that are publicly notified through the newspaper, such as applications for multiunit development. These types of applications are generally acknowledged as being the ones that are most likely to generate objections, which is why they are publicly notified in the first place.

Applications where only the neighbours are notified, such as applications relating to individual houses, are not affected by this amendment. This is only a small extension, but it will have significant benefits for those groups and individuals who wish to comment on development proposals, as it will give them a bit more time to make considered responses. This has been a major issue for the local area planning advisory committees. LAPACs usually meet once a month, but with the current three-week objection period it has been possible for development applications to be lodged just after their meetings, with the period for comment expiring before they meet again. Other community groups concerned with planning issues, groups such as the conservation council, and the various residents groups face the same problem.

This issue came to a head at the start of the year when members of some LAPACs threatened to resign over this lack of sufficient time to comment. Some LAPACs were meeting almost fortnightly to go through the development applications for their area, which was very draining on the volunteer members of the LAPACs. I understand the minister then agreed to allow LAPACs extra days in which to comment, provided that the LAPACs notified PALM that they needed extra time. This arrangement is still restrictive on LAPACs, as they may still need to meet between their normal meetings to decide whether they will put in comments after the next meeting. I am also concerned that LAPACs are still dependent on the minister's discretion to provide this longer period.

I therefore believe that it would be better for the longer objection period to be written into the planning legislation so that the minister cannot change his or her mind over the length of the comment period allowed for LAPACs. I would regard a four-week period for objections as a minimum standard that balances the needs of developers with the needs of residents who want to make sure that the development is appropriate. For some controversial developments, particularly those involving complex Territory Plan variations, I think the minister should allow longer periods as a matter of course.

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