Page 1368 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I acknowledge that this is a substantial improvement compared to the situation before that act. But when we were going through the deconcessionalisation process for the Brumbies site, it was very notable that, I believe, there were around 200 submissions to ACTPLA about the change in territory plan but only eight submissions about deconcessionalisation. The reason for the difference in number, I understand, was that very few people actually realised that the deconcessionalisation process was happening. They did not see the signs; they did not put anything in about it because they simply were not aware of it.
This bill would require that there is better notification. Deconcessionalisation is an important issue—and it is an issue which, generally speaking, is very controversial. The areas that are being deconcessionalised are areas which have been community facilities, generally, for quite some period of time—50 or 60 years, typically. And the plan is to change their use. This is something the community want a say in, but unfortunately the notification requirements at present are such that they may not manage to have a say in it.
I move to the public notification requirements for draft variations to the territory plan. This is another area where we are getting increasing feedback that people who are affected do not know about it. At present they are notified through a public notice in the newspaper. Unfortunately, the Canberra Times does not have the circulation it used to have, and that is not a very effective method of notification. The bill proposes that if a draft variation includes a change to a zone, houses within 500 metres of that site should be notified by mail. We all know that it is quite cheap to do letterboxing, so I do not think this is a very onerous requirement on the proponents. What is happening at present is that by the time residents find out about these things it is often too late and they are not able to lodge representations in a timely fashion—possibly not able to lodge them at all.
The next area that I am moving to is about the construction of single dwellings in existing areas. Members may recall that when the Planning and Development Act 2007 commenced in 2008, the construction of single-dwelling houses in existing suburbs was in the code track and the construction of single-dwelling houses in new suburbs was exempt from the need for development approval. In April 2009, the Planning and Development Regulation was amended to include single-dwelling houses in existing areas as exempt from development approval, instead requiring code track approval.
Over the years, this change has led to much angst in the inner parts of Canberra, because residents are unable to view the plans or comment on the proposal. This bill would return these single dwellings in the existing suburbs to the code track, which will ensure that ACTPLA is able to assess the plans against the residential zones single-dwelling housing development code. At present all the work is done by the private certifiers. Over the years, we have had much concern about private certifiers; it is important that ACTPLA does get to see these and is in a position to assess them.
Next, my bill will increase notification for certain code track developments. Single-dwelling houses are currently exempt from development approval and can be demolished and rebuilt in existing areas under the current legislation with no public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video