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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3348 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

do nothing. These people were able to put in objections to PALM on the development applications for these houses; but, if they did not think that PALM adequately took their objections into account in approving the applications, they had no avenue of appeal. This system made the planners unaccountable for their decisions.

Appeals may be cumbersome and delay the development approval process, but they also perform a very valuable role in providing the necessary checks and balances to the planning bureaucrats and maintaining the integrity of the ACT's statutory planning system.

The Minister for Urban Services has talked in the past about wanting to encourage high-quality design in Canberra. He has expressed a desire for a move away from tick-the-box development applications to a performance-based development approval system where proponents are encouraged to present innovative building designs to meet the principles and performance objectives of the Territory Plan. That is a quite admirable desire. However, there is still a need to maintain accountability in the planning system.

At least with a tick-the-box system everyone knew what could and could not be approved. However, in moving to a performance-based system there is much more discretion in what can be approved, which results in increased uncertainty about what development will actually be allowed. The need to maintain an easily accessible appeal process becomes even more important so that planners are kept accountable for their decisions and existing residents have the chance to express their views about the appropriateness and impacts of proposed developments around them.

I raised this proposal as part of an earlier private members bill which was primarily about the minister's call-in powers under the land act. Mr Corbell put up a contrary bill which was passed ahead of my bill. The government also raised concerns at the time about the workability of the amendments I put up. Therefore, I withdrew my earlier bill and prepared this revised bill which focuses on appeal rights.

It is not easy to explain how this bill would work in practice because it requires an understanding of how the land act regulations work, which are quite complicated. I am happy to talk privately to other members about the bill at a later time. As a simple explanation, let me say that the regulations currently provide a range of exemptions to the requirements in the land act for public notification and third party appeal rights against development applications.

In the case of development applications for single houses, many houses can be approved without any public notification provided they comply with a number of conditions listed in schedule 4 of the regulations; for example, they have a 6-metre setback from the front boundary or are only of one storey. If the house does not meet these conditions, the neighbours have to be notified and comments sought. But under schedule 7 of the regulations, appeal rights for any single houses are specifically excluded. Clause 5 of my bill simply deletes this exclusion, with the result that house applications that are notified to neighbours will be able to be appealed against. House applications that are currently not publicly notified will not be affected by this bill.

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