Page 2151 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is very important that this written notice is in plain, understandable English. Unfortunately, the Planning and Development Act is such that if it just includes extracts from that, most of us will not be able to understand it.
I understand the notice will also include a copy of proposed plans so that the neighbours can easily find out what is proposed, whether or not they think the proposal meets the codes and, of course, whether or not they think it will cause them any issues. It is up to the private certifier to ensure that the neighbours are notified and that the relevant information is included. They will then know that someone who has at least seen the building plans will be watching the building go up and will notice if the plans and the building are not the same thing.
There is only one real issue that the government’s amendments did not pick up—that is, my proposal that regulations not commence until the Assembly’s disallowance period has passed. As I mentioned this morning, this is a shame because this is an area where there is uncertainty. Ask the people who are trying to appeal against the development in the Fitters Workshop about that.
In conclusion, as before, I very much thank the government, Minister Corbell and the relevant staff from ESD for their cooperation in this. It has been very helpful. As I said, Canberra is changing. To make planning changes that work for Canberra, the people of Canberra have to know what is happening. That is what my bill was about, and that is what these amendments will do.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.23): The Canberra Liberals will be supporting the amendments. We have had a short amount of time to consider them. In doing that, we have had to balance our concerns to make sure that the system that was put in place some years ago in relation to development assessment and the track system is not undermined and that we do not seek to undermine it through death by a thousand cuts versus the legitimate desire of the community to know what is going on in their neighbourhood. We are satisfied, based on our reading of the amendments and also on the answers to our questions that we have received from the minister’s office, that these amendments strike that balance.
Just briefly, the amendments are in three parts. The first relates to the draft territory plan process requiring consultation notices be provided to lessees in adjoining residences. We believe that that is reasonable. We believe that it is reasonable that adjoining residents know whether or not there will be changes to the territory plan in their neighbourhood.
In relation to the concessional status of a lease, we believe that this is an area that actually needs further consideration, that there is uncertainty and a degree of secrecy with how these issues are handled. That is something we will be looking at. That said, this particular amendment, looking at providing some pre-DA community consultation in relation to concessional status, we believe is reasonable.
The third element—the requirement for proponents to provide notifications to neighbours for certain DA-exempt developments in existing residential suburbs—we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video