Page 4035 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
To achieve these results the bill amends relevant sections in division 7.3.4 on public notification of DAs and representations. For example, the bill amends section 153 requiring notification letters to neighbouring lessees. The amendment will apply if before the end of the original notification period ACTPLA becomes aware of a defect in the content of the letter which makes the letter incorrect, incomplete or misleading.
In such a case, ACTPLA must assess the error and consider whether the defect is one that is likely to impair someone’s awareness of the timing, location or nature of the proposed development or restrict someone’s ability to comment. If ACTPLA concludes that the error is likely to have any of these negative effects then ACTPLA is obliged to repeat this public notification process. The repeat would need to be a full repeat. In other words, fresh letters would have to be sent again to all relevant neighbouring lessees.
The same mechanisms and obligations are introduced into similar provisions on public notification. For example, the bill also amends section 155 of the act which requires physical signs on the development site. If ACTPLA becomes aware that a required property sign is defective then ACTPLA may be required to repeat the public notification. Also, if ACTPLA discovers that the required sign was never displayed, a repeat of that public notification will be required.
I will speak further about the details of the bill at a later stage. This is clearly a short bill. Some might say it is refreshingly uncomplicated and direct. In this case, brevity is a virtue. What this bill does not do is as important as what it does do. To underline this point I would like to set out more of the context for the bill.
First, this bill is but one element of an overall strategy to enhance the public notification system. Of equal importance are steps that have been taken and will be taken in the administration of the notification process. An error in the public notification of a Latham development application was raised in the debate on the ACT Greens party bill that was debated in June. Since that error came to light, ACTPLA has initiated processes to ensure that notification errors are eliminated as far as possible. These steps strengthened an already robust system that, it must be remembered, resulted in an exceptionally low error rate in the content of public notices.
In addition, I can confirm that ACTPLA has been working with the office of the Commissioner for ACT Revenue to permit ACTPLA to obtain up-to-date information to ensure that letters notifying neighbouring lessees of development applications are sent to the latest address. This process for the augmentation of ACTPLA’s address database will utilise existing sections 395A and 395B of the act. I am advised that this process is scheduled to become operational by November this year.
These are indeed significant steps to strengthen the public notification process on top of the measures in this bill. This bill does not include measures to make radical change. Rather, it is about making incremental improvement of an already sound system. In this the bill clearly differs from the ACT Greens’ bill debated in June. When we debated that bill in June I indicated that the government could not support that bill because of its open-ended features that would end the ability of the planning system to deliver timely planning decisions that could be relied upon.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video