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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 280 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Experience has shown that orders, prosecution or termination of leases, as compliance tools, are either too cumbersome or too severe to achieve the best outcome. The bill therefore includes a number of amendments to the orders process that provide a clearer structure and greater clarity to existing provisions. Currently the Planning and Land Authority, or delegate, can apply for an order only as a person, not in its own right. The bill explicitly provides for the Planning and Land Authority to make orders at its own initiative.

Development applications for minor lease boundary variations to eliminate building encroachments also need to be notified. In cases where it is not appropriate to vary the lease boundary to eliminate an encroachment-for example, for an awning over a shopfront public footpath-either a permit or a licence for the unleased land would be sufficient.

Where the Planning and Land Authority undertakes rectification work on a lease, it is entitled to recover the cost from the occupier or lessee of the land. The bill provides for the lessee to apply to the authority to have the cost repayment deferred. If agreed, the repayment is secured by registering a charge against the lease. Interest is payable on the deferred cost repayment.

The bill provides for the Planning and Land Authority to issue a prohibition notice in order to prevent or lessen irreversible damage being caused by, for example, unapproved development activities. The notice would have immediate effect.

Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Dunne ) adjourned to the next sitting.

Variation to the Territory Plan No 174

Motion for disallowance

MS TUCKER (10.53): I move:

There are two major reasons why I move to disallow the changes that this variation would make to the Territory Plan.

Firstly, I fundamentally disagree with the notion of concessional leases being given over to residential development. In doing this we are essentially taking from the community and giving to a developer, and in the process providing the leaseholders with a substantial financial windfall. The spirit of concessional leases such as this is that they will provide needed community facilities. They should not be viewed as a means of securing future windfall profits for the leaseholder.

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