Page 1899 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
we should have more significant DA notifications there. We should obviously look at the web more. I have talked a bit about that. We should look at radio. We need to look at this issue.
One of the things that have been suggested to me on many occasions—virtually everybody says—is that ACTPLA should not be doing just notifications. They should be taking a consultative role and they should be taking a stronger role in attempting to ensure that development best meets the needs of the community, the intentions of the developer, the territory plan and the general direction the community and Canberra as a whole wishes to move in. I really understand what the community is saying and I have a great degree of sympathy with it.
But I do hesitate to suggest that—and I am not actually going to be suggesting this as part of my amendments, because it does not fit in with our current model of how ACTPLA works—ACTPLA currently is not interventionist. It is a statutory authority as far as this is concerned. It also would be an awful lot of work and it would be a very political process, but I do understand why the community is frustrated and thinking that there should be some mediating role and that they, as people who are not planning professionals, are not really in a position to, in effect, as they feel, go up against ACTPLA and the developer in trying to get their voice heard.
I do not really know the solution, but one possible way to do this would be to require development applications to conform with local neighbourhood plans, as these should already have the characteristics desired in the neighbourhood built in. But of course, the status of neighbourhood plans is yet another ongoing planning consultation discussion and I do not intend to go further into that today.
I would also talk about two particular issues relating to appeals to ACAT. The first is the issue of joint standing. It is very disappointing to note that you cannot be joined to an ACAT case if you do not have standing in your own right, even if you have a good case and relevant information to contribute. Surely if a development application is flawed, it really should not matter who is appealing, whether or not they have standing. What should be more important is ensuring that developments adhere to the territory plan and the relevant laws and codes.
Secondly, it has been suggested that a formal process should be established whereby the government responds to recommendations from ACAT. I raise this, thinking particularly about the Latham case early last year, when ACAT made comments about the human rights obligations; yet the government was in no way obliged to respond. I guess, in regard to the ongoing saga at Kingston Foreshore where we have had a succession of ACAT decisions, there is still some lack of clarity as to exactly what is proceeding there. Overall though, the Greens are supporting this bill.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Gaming and Racing) (11.29), in reply: I thank the Leader of the Opposition and Ms Le Couteur for their support of the bill. I recognise Ms Le Couteur has flagged a series of amendments and I will talk a little more about that in a moment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video