Page 2214 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Before turning to the major elements of the bill, I must comment on the reliance on New South Wales law that appears to underpin this bill. New South Wales planning law is more restrictive in terms of third party appeals than current ACT law. The proposed amendments would go well beyond both current ACT and New South Wales planning laws. Cutting and pasting sections of New South Wales planning law into the ACT planning law is certainly not a good basis for further planning reform.
In New South Wales the right of third party merit review applies to designated development which approximates our impact track assessable development. Other than that, there is no third party merit review right within New South Wales planning law. In her speech, Ms Le Couteur quoted section 123 of the New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act extensively, and it is reflected in this bill. I am advised that this section only creates a right of appeal on the grounds that a planning decision breaches that act. This provision exists in New South Wales law to allow people to challenge the legality of the planning decision but it does not permit a full review of the merits of the decision aside from its legality.
Mr Speaker, I now wish to turn to the impact of the major provisions of this bill. Initially I will deal with the provisions of the bill in relation to the rectification of errors in notification. Currently, when ACTPLA determines a DA, the validity of that determination is not affected simply by ACTPLA’s failure to notify correctly. As the scrutiny of bills committee noted in its report No 18 dated 1 February this year on this bill, such a provision is not uncommon. This bill removes that protection. So if ACTPLA inadvertently exclude a comma or misspell a word in a DA notification, that DA approval becomes invalid.
As the bill stands, this could occur even when a DA decision is challenged six months after the approval. This would create utter chaos in our planning system. The provisions appear to have been drafted without any discussion with ACTPLA on the extent and the number of such errors and how they are dealt with currently. It is also clear—and perhaps not surprising—that industry views were not considered.
This brings us to the Latham DA which is being used as an example for the need to introduce these provisions. Following this case, ACTPLA has reviewed its internal procedures concerning verification of notifications. As a result, the government will be introducing amendments to the Planning and Development Act to provide a legislative process to allow re-notification of applications. These will be able to occur prior to any decision being made on the DA where there may have been a deficiency in notification. This, Mr Speaker, is an effective and practical response to this issue.
The government is acutely aware of the responsibility the current act imposes on ACTPLA to get it right. Ultimately, the current requirements and the government’s foreshadowed amendments represent the best balance between correction of potential notification errors and the efficacy of the entire development approval process.
The bill also proposes to extend the right of ACAT merit review to any person who makes an objection. This would be the case irrespective of whether that person would potentially suffer material detriment, provided they made an objection during the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video