Page 1581 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The main objectives of the planning reform project were well known. We wanted a planning system that was simpler, faster and more effective. That was our objective and it remains our objective. The 2008 reforms were practical, innovative and far-reaching. I summarise the key elements in this way: an assessment track system; a better front end; new exemptions; better and fairer notification, consultation and appeals; and the restructured territory plan.
The heart of the act is the “assessment track” system. This is based on the leading practice model agreed at a national level through the development assessment forum, which itself is part of a COAG reform process. In an assessment track system, different types of development get different amounts of attention, based on the complexity of the proposal. It provides a more exhaustive, transparent assessment process for those developments that are complex or have a high impact, and a streamlined process for those that are simple or have negligible impact.
“Code track” was introduced to provide a fast track for basic residential development in accordance with clear rules. What it means in practice is shorter time frames for a decision, no third party appeals and no public notification. A typical code track development is a residential house that meets certain criteria in a greenfield site.
“Merit track” deals with those applications that sit outside the prescribed rules and require public notification to fully assess their impact and are not subject to an environmental impact statement. In practice, merit track applications typically require short public consultation with no third party appeal. They maintain an approval time frame of 30 working days or 45 days if community concerns are received following notification. They also maintain third party appeal rights for high-impact proposals. That said, objectors must demonstrate that they are materially affected by the proposed development.
“Impact track” applies to applications that are more complex and have a high potential impact. Key features of this track are that an environmental impact assessment is obligatory, the DA is sequential to the EIS and the decision time frame on the DA remains 30 working days, or 45 days if there are representations from the community—simpler, faster and more effective; practical and innovative reform, Mr Speaker.
In addition to the assessment track system, the front end of the development assessment processes is designed to help applicants lodge their applications in the appropriate track. Extensive training, information, over-the-counter assistance and pre-application meetings at no charge to the applicant are all initiatives to make the system more efficient.
Industry has commented that the completeness check, which is a process ahead of the formal lodgement of the development application, has been taking too long. These checks are designed to ensure that all of the required plans and documents to enable a full assessment of a proposal are submitted. I know that a number of these checks have taken too long—up to two weeks in some cases. However, I can advise that a recent random sample has shown an average turnaround of less than half that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .