Page 1900 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Given that the planning minister has responsibility for 20 acts and their respective pieces of subordinate legislation, the process for this PABLAB debate is an effective and flexible tool to consolidate minor, non-controversial amendments to the building and planning legislation and, in my view, provides a practical and expedient response to amend minor technical and typographical errors, to clarify uncertainties, to remove redundancies and to address minor policy challenges. So this first PABLAB, as Ms Le Couteur indicated, amends parts of the Building Act, the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act, the Electrical Safety Act, the Gas Safety Act, the Surveyors Act, the Unit Titles Act and the Planning and Development Act and Regulation.
Individually, each of these amendments is minor but cumulatively they ensure that our planning and building legislation is up to date and reflective of contemporary practice. The most important change in this PABLAB is the clarification of language used for notification in relation to development applications.
Ms Le Couteur indicated that this clarification is necessary because the Planning and Development Act uses both “consultation” and “notification” in relation to DAs, which confuses what is actually required. I do stress, though, that it is a clarification of language only. It does not change the intent of the act or how development applications are assessed.
The intention of the act is that DAs be notified when they are submitted, to allow the community to have the opportunity to make a comment on the proposal. There is no role or scope for ACTPLA to consult on a DA once it is submitted. It is critical, in my view, that the planning authority remains impartial in its assessment processes and considers applications on their merits, having regard to the planning rules that are set by the Assembly. Therefore this bill amends those sections of the act where the word “consultation” is used in relation to DAs, where the intent of the provisions is actually notification. Consultation on a development application is clearly the role of the proponent and, I say again, should occur before a development application is submitted.
Future amendments to the Planning and Development Act, which I have foreshadowed in this place, will further clarify the role of a proponent in consulting with the community prior to the lodgement of certain development applications. It is my intention to introduce such legislation later this year.
This PABLAB and those that will be introduced in the future make a series of minor but important changes to a range of legislation to ensure the ongoing quality of the overall ACT planning and building laws.
I note in Ms Le Couteur’s contribution that she made reference to some amendments. Can I state from the outset that I do not disagree markedly with the sentiment of her amendments and, as I have indicated, support the need for greater clarification around the requirements for notification and consultation of development applications. And that is why the PABLAB sought to amend the Planning and Development Act to clarify language around DA notification and it is why I have foreshadowed future
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video