Page 2217 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This system is by no means perfect, but introducing more uncertainty, more appeals and more delays is not the way to address these issues.
I also note that some of the reforms that have moved us to this point have been supported by the Canberra Liberals and that this bill would unravel some of those reforms.
I will take each area of main concern in turn, but I will start with what is likely to be the most contentious and contended in the marketplace—the move to broaden standing in the appeals process.
The bill inserts a number of provisions that would possibly greatly increase the number and type of persons or parties who could lodge appeals. The current provisions have been developed over many years as a reasonable, workable balance between the needs for territory growth, renewal and development and the rights of residents and neighbours. It has taken many contentious cases for this balance to be worked out and, although possibly not perfect in every instance, the system does attempt to strike a reasonable balance.
The proposed changes, we believe after much discussion, tip the balance too much in one direction and could also create potential unintended consequences. We understand from our discussions with industry that the unintended consequences of this bill could be severe. Industry has been very clear on this. We note that stakeholders have expressed deep concerns about how the bill will impact on the construction industry in Canberra and the impact that the bill may have on the level of appeals within ACAT.
The Planning Institute of Australia wrote to the Minister for Planning, the Greens convenor and I in early February. The institute said:
We consider the Bill has the potential to seriously affect the carrying out of orderly and economic development activity within the Territory by introducing a significant extent of uncertainty in the Development Application process.
Chris Peters from the chamber of commerce said:
It will make a dreadful situation even worse. It will add further delays, uncertainty, and significant extra costs to the process and will make developments even more expensive.
The HIA said:
On reviewing the ACT Greens amendment Bill it is clear to HIA that, if adopted, it would impact severely on the planning system by affording far too many rights to objectors that could be open to exploitation. Developments could be obtrusively halted or delayed at a significant cost to the developer and end user.
This moves in part to the notification proposals in this bill and shows the sort of unintended consequences that may arise. The HIA further notes:
Even more farcically, approvals can be revoked after site and building works have commenced, removing the certainty of an approval. Industry should not be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video