Page 2223 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (10.34), in reply: I thank members for their contributions, and in particular Ms Hunter, who gave a very good exposition of the legal reasoning behind the proposed changes.
I would like to start by reminding members of what my bill is actually trying to do. First, it will ensure that ACTPLA undertakes full public notification with full information available at the onset of all merit and impact track DAs. Second, it allows ACTPLA and ACAT to consider a broader range of issues when reviewing territory decisions such as territory plan zoning objectives as well as territory plan rules. Third, it also increases standing for community members to access merit review of DA decisions. Mr Barr in particular, and Mr Seselja to some extent, created a straw man out of the idea of this bill. The bill is not going to fundamentally change our planning system. The bill intends to improve it. It is an incremental change which, if passed, would improve the planning system. It is not rewriting the planning system from the bottom up.
Since I tabled this bill last December, there have been a number of changes in the planning area. One has been the case of Mr Chris Watson of Latham, who I would like to acknowledge is here today, together with colleagues from Latham and members of the Belconnen Community Council. The other thing I would like to acknowledge is the interest of the community councils in the fate of this planning bill. All six community councils met together and unanimously voted to support this bill. Mr Barr commented that I had not undertaken public consultation. I am not quite sure how—
Mr Barr: With industry.
MS LE COUTEUR: much more public consultation I could have taken than all six community councils. And yes, Mr Barr, I did talk with industry but as you would be aware they were not of the same mind as me on it. But I did talk to them. I also note in this context the current redevelopment proposal for O’Connor shops, which is a very fine example of the possible inconsistency between planning rules and the territory plan objectives.
I asked Mr Barr for some clarification on this issue yesterday and I await his answer with considerable interest, because it is directly relevant to how ACAT will be able to consider an appeal if an appeal actually happens on this. Just turning to Latham, I have been very interested in watching how Mr Watson’s case has been handled and assessed throughout the ACTPLA and ACAT processes. It is a case where someone has a very strong interest in his local centre but he did not actually live next door to it. He lived only in the same suburb; so this was not regarded as close enough to suffer material detriment and therefore could not gain standing for a merits review or appeal of an ACAT decision.
The development decision he wished to appeal also relates to the notification section addressed in my bill. I note that no-one is eligible for standing to appeal given they did not put in objections. They did not put in objections because the DA was so badly notified. People did not realise what the DA actually was about.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video