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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 610 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

For category 3, where people are wanting to rebuild on a much larger basis or want more than one dwelling, the normal requirements would continue to apply. That is about protecting community and neighbourhood amenity as well as making sure we get a good process for what is essentially an entirely new and different dwelling or building.

Those issues have been substantially addressed in the streamlining of that process. The response of PALM staff in the development management and territory planning branches and in building, electrical and plumbing control has been outstanding.

There has also been a significant waiving of fees, which has meant that a whole series of costs have essentially been taken out of the equation when it comes to reconstruction. I have set the fee level at zero for a series of development and building approval fees. There are nil fees for any costs relating to the planning approval and certification requirements, including the fee for a development application, the building levy, hydraulic fees, plan registrations, access to house plans, survey data and relevant certificates, such as the certificate of occupancy.

All of those fees have been waived for people seeking to rebuild-a saving of about $1,500 on fees. That is not insignificant when you look at the cost of demolition, which might not always be fully included in the insurance policy. It is certainly important in the context of having money to buy all the other things you will need for replacing contents.

So, there has been a significant response in that regard as well. The assertion that we can have no confidence in this recovery process is, quite frankly without foundation. Further, staff resourcing in PALM has been improved, There is clearly going to be more work coming in: an additional 500 applications are coming in.

It is worth pointing out that the median turnaround time for approval of a single dwelling in the ACT is one to two days, so the development approval time is not the most time-consuming process when it comes to the rebuild. What is more time consuming is getting the demolition in, getting all the rubble carted away and simply doing the design-people working out what it is they want to build.

The actual approval time is good, but to address that further the government has sought and is receiving assistance from PlanningNSW. Planning NSW have offered staff and other resources to assist with development approval. That is of some assistance to us, although people from PlanningNSW do not always have the relevant knowledge of our Land Act and our building regulations, which is needed. Nevertheless, where possible we are taking that assistance into account.

Further, there are the broader strategic issues that Planning and Land Management are having to address. These are already being addressed through the spatial plan and the identification of potential areas for future urban growth, but there are also the urban interface issues and the management of non-urban land.

I would like to respond to the comments Ms Dundas made in this regard, when she highlighted her view that there is confusion between the role of the non-urban land study and the spatial plan work. It is a straightforward process, and I am happy to explain it.

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