Page 2215 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
public notification on the development application. Appeals will also be open to any person—even if they did not make an objection during the public notification—provided they show their interests might be affected in some way.
This means that where, for example, someone wants to build an extension on their home in one part of the city, someone in another part of the city could lodge an appeal for reasons unrelated to planning issues. This bill would reintroduce the ability for appeals to be used as a means to frustrate legitimate market competition.
Mr Speaker, the bill would remove the existing provisions that prevent appeals from businesses fearful of losing business or profits from competition, irrespective of the benefit of greater convenience and choice for the community. In fact, the grounds for appeal, and the range of those who can bring an appeal, become almost endless under this bill.
In addition, the bill would remove time limits in which an appeal can be brought. Of even greater significance is the provision that would allow ACAT to reconsider all aspects of the territory plan. This further erodes the concept of the Assembly and the community setting the parameters in which people are free to undertake their activities. It attacks any concept of certainty.
A person could not rely on rules or criteria in preparing a DA as they may not be applicable in the event of appeal. I am not sure that this is really the procedural fairness that the Greens party are seeking. There is also confusion about whether there is an intention to extend merit appeals to all merit track applications. Ms Le Couteur in her presentation speech said:
… it ensures that ACTPLA undertakes full public notification with the full information available at the onset on all merit and impact track DAs.
Yet the bill will not achieve this stated aim. For example, the bill does not remove the existing restriction of third party appeals in the merit track to only those matters that require full public notification as opposed to minor matters that do not require full public notification. The bill appears to remove a note on section 152 of the Planning and Development Act on the assumption that this distinction is no longer relevant yet the bill leaves this distinction in place. While not clear, the reference to full notification of all merit DAs and the deletion of the note would seem to be indicative of an intention to subject currently non-appellable merit track applications to merit review.
Mr Speaker, the combined effect of the provisions mentioned so far would be to create an open-ended merit appeal right where territory plan provisions are open to endless reinterpretation by differing decision makers. Perhaps somewhat inconsistently, the bill does, however, leave some of the current restrictions on appeals in the planning and development regulation in place.
In summary, this bill is not simply about a few improvements. It is a fundamental and radical rewriting of appeal rights. In addition, little thought appears to have been given to the resource impacts on both ACTPLA and ACAT if appeals are broadened
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video