Page 2149 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The proponent of these exempt developments will also be required to provide a written notice as part of the building approval application process. This will provide information to the building certifier that this element of the exemption criterion has been complied with. If the notice is not provided, then the proposed development cannot be exempt from the need to have development approval. The existing requirements for these DA-exempt developments to meet the rules in the single dwelling housing development code remain and the building certifier will establish this compliance.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the broad intent of the changes the government is proposing through these amendments. In principle, this is about making sure that people are more aware of changes that are proposed through the planning system in relation to territory plan variations, in relation to proposals to change the concessional status of a lease and in relation to proposals to demolish or substantially alter an existing dwelling in an existing new suburb where development approval is not required. This will improve the community’s understanding of what is occurring in their local neighbourhood and further enhance community information and education about the planning and development process. The government is pleased to be moving these amendments.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (4.14): I am very pleased to support these amendments. I would very much like to thank the government, Minister Corbell and, in particular, Ms Sherridan Marsh and Ms Lesley Cameron for their cooperation and support in developing these amendments. They follow the spirit—clearly not always the same words—as my planning bill, which was defeated this morning. But I am very pleased the government has taken on the major parts of that and that the negotiations were very fruitful and generous. I think we have achieved a very good outcome out of this. I would also, of course, like to thank in my office Indra Esguerra for all her work and PCO for all theirs. I am sure they really do not love planning regulations, and unfortunately they have had to do two sets of them—one for us and one for the government. Nonetheless I think we have got a good outcome.
This good outcome is important to Canberra. This good outcome is about better notification for the people of Canberra as to what is going to be happening around them from a planning point of view. Now, we all know Canberra is changing because of densification. There are places where there used not to be a building and now there is. Buildings are being changed. A lot of this change is good and a lot of this change is inevitable. But what is important is that it is change that takes the community with it and that the community understand why it is happening. Even if they do not always think it is exactly what they want to have happen, they should at least understand what is going on and know what is happening.
Hopefully we will manage to make our planning changes in a way that the community as a whole supports. But we cannot have that support unless people know what is going on. When people come home and the place next door has been knocked down and they did not know anything about it, that is the sort of thing that really upsets people.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video