Page 2150 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have had a lot of emails about the various issues covered in this. There are three issues: deconcessionalisation proposals, draft variations and knockdown rebuilds. I will go through all three of them briefly to begin with. With draft territory plan variations, the government’s amendments mean that everyone who is in an adjacent section is notified. When you look at the map of the sections and blocks, the section is the big bit and the block is the little bit. I always get the two confused, but it means that the people in the adjoining area will be notified. My bill actually had a wider area, and I hope this is something with which ACTPLA will use its discretion appropriately so that, where the draft territory plan variation is likely to be particularly contentious, more rather than less notification is done.
I acknowledge that the deconcessionalisation process that we have now and which is being used for the first time with the Brumbies is better than it used to be, when there was just an exchange of letters between the government and the proponents. Nonetheless, as everyone who has had any involvement with the Brumbies situation would know, it is something which is very emotive for the members of the community. It is always the case with a deconcessionalisation proposal that something which was a community facility, something which was very much loved, is going to change. They are always controversial proposals.
The government’s amendments will ensure that this is notified in the same way as consultation by a proponent before a large development goes ahead. The pre-DA consultation is a result of PABLAB 2, which was, again, inspired by amendments which I had for PABLAB. I am very pleased with the amount of consultation the government is doing on these proposals. I have had the privilege of listening to a number of presentations from ACTPLA on the subject, and it is good to see we are doing this one well and properly. I understand the government will be coming out with final proposals for this fairly soon.
The other area the government’s amendments work on is suburban knockdown rebuilds. The regulations changed in 2009, and it has taken a little while for this to really become an issue, but it has become an issue based on the email traffic to my office and, I am sure, to members of both the government and the Liberal Party. Some people are seriously upset about what is happening next to them. I totally agree that most proposals are absolutely fine, but not all of them are, and it is important that people have the right to know what is happening next to them.
We used to have a situation where there was a notifiable DA for all the changes in our suburbs and areas. The amendment does not quite get it back to that. It recognises the changes as to how we have done things with the increased use of the private certifier, and so what we will have is the opponent of a development proposal giving a written notice about the proposal to the residents of adjoining properties. The contents of this written notice will be outlined in a form, which will be a notifiable instrument under the legislation, including an exemption assessment notice, which should outline the rules under which the proposal is being approved, noting that it is exempt from development approval but that it must still meet the provisions of the Building Code and territory plan codes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video