Page 5747 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
about them, they are often told they were on the ACTPLA website and they could have found out about them there. The average Canberran, I am afraid, does not check the ACTPLA website very often—possibly not at all.
The community does not necessarily want a huge level of input into many of these developments, but it is important to avoid the Arthur Dent situation. I had it myself—I came home one day and found that the house over the road just was not there anymore, which was a bit of a surprise. Even if neighbours do not have the right to comment on a development because it is exempt, which includes demolition and development of garages and single-dwelling houses, they certainly have the right to know if the house next to them is about to be demolished and replaced.
This bill has not taken on my proposals to notify neighbours of an impending development via a letter, but it has introduced a requirement for a sign to be erected by a licensed builder where work is to be undertaken in advance of the work being carried out as well as while the work is being undertaken. The sign which will be required around the block where the development will occur will include information and contact details for the builder and the certifier, a description of the building work to be carried out, information about the development approval and the stages of work to be carried out.
I am pleased this signage requirement will now be required by legislation and be consistent across developments. I note that, although this contact detail information is already available to the public, most people would not know how or where to access the information, and this legislation will make it easier for the public. The requirements do not require a 3D representation of the proposal at this stage, but possibly in the future that is something that might need to be added.
Given all these improvements to notification and consultation, I support the contents of the bill before us today, but I would also like to take the opportunity to put forward some small amendments, which I will be moving shortly in the detail stage.
I am glad the fact that I put forward my Planning and Development (Notifications and Review) Amendment Bill for debate in 2009 has meant these issues around community consultation, notification and review processes are getting serious government consideration, and that includes the amendments I proposed but, after negotiation, did not present to PABLAB 1.
I would like to thank the government for seriously investigating and addressing these matters as I believe there are many people in the Canberra community now and in the future who will be very pleased these issues are resolved. I believe, unfortunately, there are still some substantial flaws in our planning processes, and I look forward to these being addressed in future bills.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (4.52), in reply: I thank Ms Le Couteur for her support of this bill. This bill is an important reform in clarifying pre-DA consultation arrangements for certain types of development.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video