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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3257 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

that the change would not cause a significant increase in detriment to any person. Ms Tucker proposes to amend the criteria to require that the approval does not cause an increase in detriment to any person or the environment. The amendment to add a reference to the potential detriment to the environment of the proposed approval is, obviously, a new requirement.

Clause 6 inserts an additional notification requirement, to apply when an amendment has been made to an approval. The approving authority is to notify each person who had objected to the grant of the approval. Clause 7 is a transitional provision, making it clear that the changes apply only to applications made on or after the date of commencement of the amendments.

Mr Speaker, the government will be supporting this bill with one qualifier. We will not be supporting clause 4 of the bill, which is about the proposed increase in detriment. Paragraph 247 (2) (c) of the act was drafted with the intent of making clear the position that, while it can be argued that any amendment to an approval is likely to have some effect, however small, on a person, the change may be made if that effect will not be substantial or significant.

For example, an amendment to an approval may involve only a very small change to the location of a window or a door. It is most important that the paragraph be read in conjunction with the other criteria for deciding to approve a minor amendment. The approving authority must be satisfied of the nature of the amendment in respect of those other criteria, which are that the amendment, firstly, will not change the effect of a condition of the original approval and, secondly, does not change the kind of development proposed.

The provision recognises that, where any decision is to be made involving threshold criteria, judgment must at some time be exercised by some person. In most cases, it is not possible to say with absolute certainty that no person will be affected in any way by a development. In fact, it is almost certain that some person will be affected by any development activity.

It is important to note that under appendix 1, matters for consideration, to the Territory Plan, the first matter to be considered is any significant effect that the development may have on the environment. In fact, several of the matters for consideration focus strongly on environmental protection, so these are already, in essence, in effect in our legislation. Section 247 will only allow a change to an approval if, broadly stated, the nature of the development is not changed and if the effect of any conditions is not changed.

Any environmental issues raised in respect of the first approval would be protected by those requirements. The reference in Ms Tucker's proposed amendment to the effect of the change on the environment, in effect, duplicates these existing provisions in the Territory Plan and the land act. Protection of the environment should be treated as a general requirement for all development approvals. That is why it is a matter for consideration under the Territory Plan.

The AAT review process has always sought to address the question of equity between developers and residents, while ensuring that there is sufficient substance to an objection to discourage frivolous or vexatious challenges. The objection process is one which must

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