Page 250 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the time that I would ask ACTPLA to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed notification procedures. The amendments in clause 12 of the bill result from this reconsideration. The main approach to consultation remains unchanged. No notification is required in the code track; notification is required in all cases in the merit and impact tracks.
The amendment refines this model by permitting some merit track applications to be notified by notice in the newspaper and the sign on the property, rather than through letters to neighbouring lessees. This alternative form of notification will only be possible for types of development applications identified in the regulation as suited to this method of notification. For example, the regulations will be able to permit development applications for approval of estate development plans in new estate areas to be notified by newspaper notice and a sign on the land. In this case notification of neighbouring lessees is impractical because it is a new estate area. I would like to emphasise that this amendment is not about removing the requirement for public notification. Instead, it is about ensuring that the required method is practical and effective.
Clause 8 of the bill also touches on public notification procedures for some minor variations to the territory plan. The amendment recognises that there are some territory plan variations for which additional public consultation serves little or no purpose other than to create unnecessary delay. Correction of formal errors does not warrant fresh public notification, because there is no substantive change involved. Similarly, changes to bring the territory plan in line with the national capital plan are needed simply to reflect the legal supremacy of the national capital plan.
Minor changes to zone boundaries to reflect more detailed survey work or to achieve a more accurate alignment with a lease boundary are similarly minor changes. There are also variations that must be made with new land releases following the approval of estate development plans for a new estate area, and in this case the territory plan must be varied to reflect the new zone boundaries for the estate and any other ongoing matters approved following public consultation on the estate development plan.
Further public consultation at this juncture is not necessary because there is no discretion as to the variation. It must be completed for the new estate area to proceed, so to require further public consultation at this point would only cause unnecessary and unacceptable delay to the release of land for new housing.
This bill makes a number of other amendments including provisions to modify the requirement for ACTPLA to make requests for further information on development applications within 10 days. ACTPLA must make its decision to require information within 10 days of lodgement. If a decision is made within this time, the time allowed for completion of the assessment is extended by the time it takes the proponent to supply the information. This extension still applies if the decision is communicated to the applicant some time after this 10-day period.
The bill also permits the territory plan to reference external documents, notwithstanding that the documents change from time to time, provided the documents are identified in regulation. The bill also permits the regulation to reference standards notwithstanding that standards change from time to time. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .