Page 5496 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
additional amending bills next year, so issues around that can wait till then to be addressed.
This bill, my Planning and Development (Notifications and Review) Amendment Bill 2009, does three things in relation to development applications. Firstly, it ensures that ACTPLA undertakes full public notification with the full information available at the onset on all merit and impact track DAs. Secondly, it allows ACTPLA and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, ACAT, to consider a broader range of issues when we are dealing with DA decisions, such as territory plan zoning and objectives as well as the territory plan rules. Thirdly, it increases standing for community members to appeal DA decisions.
These changes address problems which have been presented to me by members of the Canberra community. I am confident that the proposals I am putting forward today will have a positive impact on our planning system.
I will go through each of these items separately, starting with the requirement for public notification of all the relevant information about a development application.
This bill amends a current loophole in the act. Currently, if ACTPLA fails to correctly follow public notification requirements and notify the full information for an impact or merit track DA, this does not affect the validity of the DA approval. The loophole exists for both public notification to adjoining premises and major public notification for merit and impact track proposals. This is, in effect, a “get out of jail free” card for ACTPLA any time it makes a mistake with notifications.
This issue was most spectacularly brought to our attention through a case in Latham earlier this year, when a DA was notified for public consultation but the DA notification contained only the lease variation proposal for the old petrol station site. The actual demolition and development proposal information for 13 residential apartments was omitted completely from public notification. I have also had numerous complaints where ACTPLA’s website does not contain all the information for the DA when the consultation period starts: it only appears on the website after people complain.
So my amendment has a standard to assess whether or not a DA is valid. It says that the failure to follow public notification requirements is only acceptable if it has not unfavourably affected the person’s awareness of the existence and nature of the application or denied or restricted the opportunity of the person to make representations about the application.
Should an omission in the notification process occur, ACTPLA may make a declaration stating that it is satisfied that the failure has not resulted in such a circumstance. This declaration would be a notifiable instrument and would be reviewable alongside other aspects of ACTPLA’s decision on a development application. In our current legislation, if people do not comment on the original DA, in general they cannot appeal the decision, so it is very important that the original notification is properly done.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video