Page 3932 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 15 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Sectors of the ACT construction industry expressed concern with increased delays during implementation of the Planning and Development Act and the new territory plan. These sectors expressed the view that a tolerance on allowable changes to construction under a DA would benefit all stakeholders, including homeowners, without significant detriment.
Clause 9 inserts new section 198C, which permits the regulations to define the circumstances when a minor change in construction or design does not require an amendment to a development approval. When section 198C applies, the construction can go ahead under the original development approval without any amendment.
It is useful to illustrate how this provision might be used in the future by referring to regulations already made under an equivalent provision inserted by the regulation modification power I referred to earlier. These regulations permit certain design changes to be made without amendment to the development approval. Under these regulations, the landowner is able to make any changes during construction that would be considered DA exempt if they were made some time after construction was completed. For example, a new window could be added to a building notwithstanding that it was not provided for in the development approval if it would be lawful to add the new window some time after the house was built by making use of a DA exemption. Such permitted changes are subject to some important exceptions—for example, if the development is of a single dwelling, the change cannot result in multiple dwellings.
Clause 9 includes other amendments to realise yet further efficiencies in the development assessment process. Clause 9 inserts a new section 198A into the act. This new section will permit ACTPLA to dispense with the need to refer an application for amendment of a DA to the relevant government agency if the amendment does not impact on any matter that was commented on by the agency when the original development application was referred for comment. In other words, if the proposed amendment has no impact on matters that the referral agency has expressed an interest in, a repeat of the agency referral process is not necessary.
Clause 9 also inserts new section 198B into the act. This new section permits ACTPLA to dispense with the need to repeat the public notification process for an application to amend a DA. This power will only be able to be exercised if ACTPLA is satisfied that the amendment will have no adverse impacts on third parties and will have no material adverse impact on the environment. In other words, if the proposed amendment to the already granted DA would have impacted on no-one and will not affect the environment then a repeat of the public notification process is not necessary.
Importantly, this provision is not new. The same discretion to dispense with public notification already exists under section 146 of the act in relation to amendment of a development application prior to approval of the development. This amendment will extend this flexibility to applications to amend a development approval after the development application has been granted. In this sense, this amendment makes the provisions for amendment of granted development approvals more consistent with the existing provisions for amendment of development applications. I note that clause 7 and clause 8 of the bill make cross-referencing amendments that are consequential upon the main amendment in clause 9. It is absolutely as clear as a bell.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .