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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 411 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

dwelling developments from any notification at all. There is no notification, but you can appeal everything. We think that is inconsistent and not desirable.

At present PALM deals with about 4,000 single-dwelling-related applications a year and many times that number of other development applications. Preparing and attending applicant and third-party appeals involves a significant amount of time and effort by the staff. Exposing all single-dwelling applications to third-party appeal would raise the level of appeals beyond PALM's capacity. We do not believe it to be necessary. The mechanisms in schedule 4 provide the level of protection that is required.

It is acknowledged that on occasion single-dwelling development is approved in somewhat controversial circumstances, probably not unlike any other development. However, it is the most codified form of development in the Territory Plan, which sets out detailed requirements for residential development. You only have to go to schedule 4, which details many of the requirements. If the requirements in schedule 4 are met, I do not see a need for what is proposed here It is unrealistic to expect that exposing single residential development to third-party appeals will remove the possibility of appeals that are unpopular with some residents.

The Samson review undertaken for PALM during 1999 by the University of Technology, Sydney, noted that the relatively high level of exposure of simple development applications to detailed process and to public scrutiny and to legal challenge. Clearly the rights of owners and their neighbours must be balanced. However, there is little merit in introducing changes that simply add not only to the complexity but also the expense while subjecting the rights of the owners to use their property to potential challenge by an unidentifiable range of options. It simply goes too far.

The independent role of the commissioner has added support to the underlying intentions of the assessment system. Proposals are approved only after due consideration by the officers of PALM of all known interests in the matter. Furthermore, the government's commitment to quality and sustainability is manifest in PALM's current reforms through the introduction ACTCode 2, which revises residential assessment processes, and the recent introduction of guidelines for assessment proposals in accordance with the criteria of quality design and sustainability. It is through those reforms and not through the strangulation of the decision-making process that the standard of development in this city will be significantly raised.

It is appropriate that there be scrutiny where it is necessary. We do not believe that in single residential development it is necessary. We believe that what is contained in the schedules, as it is processed through the officers of PALM, leads to a reasonable process that allows people protection and the ability to use their property as they see fit.

This is an issue that was decided back in 1997. We believe that what was achieved then has worked well, and we believe that the last four years show that the levels are appropriate. They are balanced. They are achieving outcomes that are being strengthened by the initiatives of the government through ACTCode 2 and insistence of high-quality and sustainable design.

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