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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2242 ..

MR CORBELL (9.14): I appreciate members' support for the motion, albeit there are some differences of opinion on how best to address this issue. I will go first of all to the point Mr Rugendyke raised in saying he will not support paragraph (2)-that there are no LAPACs in Brindabella. That is really not my fault, Mr Rugendyke. There are no LAPACs in the electorate of Brindabella because the government has chosen not to establish any. Perhaps they chose not to do that because the level of redevelopment activity is not significant enough to warrant the establishment of LAPACs. I would assume they feel that other organisations such as the Tuggeranong Community Council do a sufficient job in terms of getting comment-do not raise your eyebrows, Mr Smyth-on planning issues. I do not think that is a reason for Mr Rugendyke to oppose the motion.

The bulk of dual occupancy development occurs in the inner north and the inner south. Yes, there is some in Belconnen; yes, there is some in Woden and Weston Creek; yes, there is some in Tuggeranong; but the bulk occurs in areas where there are LAPACs. I think the minister would probably concede that point. So that is not a reason for saying paragraph (2) is not appropriate.

The minister has foreshadowed an amendment which would replace my paragraph (2) with his own proposal. I do not have a problem with the minister's intention, but I do not agree that his proposal should replace paragraph (2). So I am foreshadowing my own amendment to Mr Smyth's forecast amendment which will make Mr Smyth's proposal paragraph (4) of the motion, following on from Ms Tucker's proposed paragraph (3).

I do not believe that a review of dual occupancy development is mutually exclusive from allowing LAPACs to comment on individual applications. I take the minister's point that the review is about the policy setting, and I welcome that initiative. It is not an initiative I was aware of before now, but I welcome it and I certainly would be interested in participating in it. But I do not believe that is a reason to say that LAPACs should not be permitted from engaging in individual development proposals about dual occupancies.

For example, I think there are some benefits that can flow from allowing LAPACs to comment. LAPACs certainly will be looking at the micro level of particular dual occupancy applications as they come to them, but they will be able, through their comments, to give PALM an additional source of advice on the sorts of issues that they are concerned about with dual occupancy development applications. You can be sure that similar themes will reoccur as they comment on individual development applications for dual occupancies. It might be the bulk or mass of the building; it might be the quality of design; it might be the orientation; it might be the lack of private open space. There may be a range of issues. Alternatively, and we certainly cannot rule this out either, LAPACs might be giving PALM feedback on how they perceive PALM are assessing dual occupancies and how effectively they are doing that. There are some good reasons why we should allow LAPACs the opportunity to comment.

I stress again that it will not delay the development approval process because assessment by LAPAC is an entirely voluntary process on the part of the development proponent. Nor will it prohibit people from getting their application processed in the normal statutory timeframe, because referral to a LAPAC is not part of the normal statutory process. It is optional to the development proponent. LAPACs cannot insist that development applications come to them.

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