Page 2216 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in the manner outlined in this bill. Apart from a statement based on New South Wales experience, I wonder what consideration has been given to the implications of a significant increase in appeals in terms of delays, costs to proponents and the commitment of government resources. ACAT appeals are significantly resource-intensive for ACTPLA and may lead to a redirection of resources to appeals and away from progressing applications.
Mr Speaker, let me reiterate that this radical bill would spell an end to the ability of the planning system to deliver fast, well-considered and consistent planning decisions. It would spell an end to rules and outcomes that can be relied upon. Under this bill, delay and uncertainty would become the order of the day.
The bill achieves these unwanted results by permitting third party appeals at any time after the grant of a development approval, making all DAs vulnerable to challenge at any time on the basis of public notification flaws, by permitting multiple ACAT appeals on the same DA, by permitting the appeals process to revisit the territory plan, by permitting anyone to appeal a DA even if they have no practical interest in the matter and by permitting the appeal process to be used as a tool to defeat legitimate market competition.
Mr Speaker, any one of these features is problematic in itself. But taken together they amount to a bill which the government simply cannot support. Once again, the Greens demonstrate good intentions but have trouble translating these intentions into real outcomes. The government has decided not to seek to amend this bill to address the concerns I have outlined. Instead, we will bring forward workable amendments as part of the scheduled planning and development reform process during 2010-11.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.14): I rise to speak on the Planning and Development (Notifications and Review) Amendment Bill 2009. I note that the bill, as outlined in its explanatory statement, seeks to ensure that the ACT Planning and Land Authority undertakes full public notification, with the full information available at the outset, on all merit and impact track development approvals; allows ACTPLA and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal to consider a broader range of issues when reviewing DA decisions; and increases standing for community members to appeal DA decisions. I thank Ms Le Couteur for her work in bringing forward this bill and for the briefing she provided to my office.
While the Canberra Liberals acknowledge the intent of the bill, we are unable to support it. We have considered the intent and the potential ramifications. We have compared it with current systems in other jurisdictions, especially New South Wales, and have carefully considered the problems of the past and the potential ramifications for the future. We have reviewed the community groups’ motions and some of the sites that have particularly brought this issue to the fore, such as the site in Latham. We have also spoken to industry groups and developers and experts in the field.
After doing this work, our considered view, on the balance of the evidence, is that this bill may meet the needs of some but, when considering all parties’ needs, has too much potential to further clog what is already a slow and congested system. We believe that the bill will cause more disruption within the planning system of the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video