Page 1769 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
cause significant delays and frustrations to many. These delays have an effect on investment, and they have an effect on costs, which are inevitably passed on to home buyers in particular.
We support this bill in principle because we want to see our planning system improved in the interests of all Canberrans. From the announcement of this process, I have sought to work with the government on this issue. I made it clear from the outset that I supported the principle but that I would look to work with the government to get the detail right, and I have honoured this. I did this as a member of the planning and environment committee, which has made some very sensible suggestions to the government, some of which I understand will be taken up through government amendments. I also did this by not criticising the delay in the finalisation of the legislation and the new territory plan, as I believe it is more important that some time is taken to get this process right rather than forcing a rushed process which misses an opportunity to take steps to fix a broken planning system.
In this vein, I will also be moving amendments, which have been circulated to members, which I believe would, if agreed to, strengthen this bill and protect the fundamentals of the leasing system in the ACT, as well as honouring the stated aims of the legislation to make the planning system more efficient.
The main changes, we are told, that the bill is designed to bring about include: increasing the number of developments that do not need development approval, such as new single residences in greenfield sites and small structures, including garages, sheds and pergolas; better focused consultation, public notification and third party appeal processes; introducing clear assessment tracks for different types of development—code, impact and merit; closer integration of leasing and development assessment so that the planning system operates more efficiently; simplifying and clarifying land uses as set out in the territory plan and consolidating codes that regulate development; retaining concessional leases and making the process more accountable; and introducing a transparent environmental impact assessment process targeted at developments with significant environmental impact.
These are important goals and many of them, I believe, will be achieved through this bill once it becomes law. In particular, moving development assessments into tracks that are broadly in line with the development assessment forum model is particularly important. This change has the potential to make developments in greenfield sites in particular faster, simpler and cheaper. We are therefore supportive of it. I receive a significant amount of feedback from industry about difficulties sometimes in getting even simple DAs approved. Hopefully, this reform will make these occurrences much less common.
In terms of this part of the legislation, obviously how we regulate our private certifiers will be crucially important in making this work. I draw to the attention of the Assembly that that is something that will need a lot of work, and we will be monitoring it closely to ensure that that system works with integrity. Much will depend on the shape of the new territory plan. While this is to be debated on another day, it needs to be said that if the government does not get the territory plan right, these changes will be virtually meaningless.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .