Page 5531 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
amendment enables planning codes to be updated when things change or further information becomes available. This may include changes to concept plans for new suburbs when further planning work has been done and impacts are better understood. This does also allow dwelling numbers to be refined.
Of course, any change of code must be consistent with the policy purpose and policy framework of the code. I understand, of course, that this is going to be the subject of a further debate in the Assembly later this afternoon. The technical amendment process, I think, is an important one.
I do note, not that I take all of my policy clues from the Residential Developer Magazine, there is a section within this magazine which talks about best practice and gives some examples of best planning practice in Australia. Under the heading “The good, the bad and the ugly”, examining development delays, one of their case studies is, in fact, Crace in the ACT, where they indicate that, having some flexibility to enable change between a concept plan delivered by the planning authority and the estate development plan delivered by those developing the estate and having that flexibility to make adjustments is important. If that was not available and we had to go back through a full territory plan variation process then there would be considerable delays in delivering affordable housing to the marketplace.
I recognise that there are always trade-offs in these matters and it is fair enough to have a debate on this. I look forward to doing so this afternoon. But it is of course worth noting that the technical amendment process is indeed part of the Planning and Development Act and it has been used appropriately in this instance.
Mr Hargreaves: Supplementary?
MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth still has the call, Mr Hargreaves.
Mr Hargreaves: Life’s full of these little miseries, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: I appreciate your enthusiasm, but Mr Smyth has a supplementary question.
MR SMYTH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, just exactly how many houses would need to be added to the variation for it to be considered substantial by you?
MR BARR: That is somewhat of a hypothetical question. I do not know that it is possible for there to be an exact answer to that question. I indicated in my previous answers that any change to our code must be consistent with the policy, purpose and framework for that code.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves, a supplementary question?
MR HARGREAVES: Given that this question is about the definition of a technical amendment, are you aware of any clarifications to that definition that former planning minister Mr Smyth may have done during his regime?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video