Page 3107 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 17 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
land. It summarises stakeholders’ comments and in many cases the minister’s preliminary responses to those, and presents the committee’s views on issues raised.
Many stakeholders welcome the proposed reform package on behalf of their members. For example, the Property Council of Australia, ACT Division, welcomed the release of the bill as an important step towards achieving the goal of delivering a best practice planning system that encourages investment, growth and high-quality and sustainable development.
Similarly, the Housing Industry Association suggested that the proposed reform offers a framework to re-establish the ACT’s reputation as a uniquely well-planned city. The association suggested that simplifying the planning system could reduce costs, encourage investment and improve housing affordability. It also welcomed the plainer language, clearer definitions and terminology in the draft bill.
The Law Society of the ACT welcomed the proposed consolidation of protocols and guidelines and the proposed track system for development assessments, noting the draft bill’s general consistency with the development assessment forum model. The Australian National University welcomed the likely impact of the reforms in the City West area—known as the ANU Exchange—the benefits delivered through the earlier removal of the need for some preliminary assessments, and the withdrawal of some of the third party appeal rights.
The Conservation Council of the South East Region and Canberra said that the reforms would help achieve better natural and built environment outcomes in the territory. The Environmental Defender’s Office agreed with the ACT Planning and Land Authority that under current law a disproportionate amount of time is spent assessing minor developments and that more significant developments should have their impacts scrutinised more closely.
However, there were some criticisms that should be noted. Dr Prest suggested that the implementation of the development assessment forum model would substantially and negatively impact on the community’s democratic right to challenge major controversial developments. A practising barrister with expertise in town planning, Mr Richard Arthur, expressed the view that the draft bill is more complex than the current act and that various issues still need to be better thought through.
Although the Planning Institute of Australia expressed general support for the draft bill and its track assessment system, it also had some reservations because of its preference to consider the bill alongside the restructured territory plan and other provisions. The Housing Industry Association suggested that it would have been helpful to have the codes to consider with the draft legislation, but it accepted the ACT Planning and Land Authority’s intention to have the bill passed in 2006 or early 2007 and then focus on the codes.
Finally, the report made several recommendations that all codes and guidelines under the act address the social aspects of sustainable development. It is recommended that all estate development plans be ecologically sustainable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .