Page 1208 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I note that Minister Rattenbury has raised similar issues at a briefing provided by officers of my directorate. I note also that the government is considering amendment of the regulation to address this issue. In summary, the amendment would ensure that developments on school sites which are likely to lead to a significant increase in student enrolment numbers will no longer be DA exempt and will require development approval. These development approvals would then be referred to TAMS for assessment of traffic impacts consistent with the development assessment process.
I am aware that Minister Rattenbury’s office has also expressed the view that the school exemptions be subject to review by the Planning and Land Authority every five years and for the results of the review to be put before the Assembly. Members would then be able to assess the continuing worth of the exemptions and any proposed changes or extensions. I have asked my directorate to develop this proposal in more detail with a view to possible amending of the regulation.
I now turn to the specific nature of the exemption that is the subject of this motion, namely, the exemption for new buildings or alterations to buildings on school sites under schedule 1, section 1.99C. In doing so, I wish to emphasise the limited scope of the DA exemption. Section 1.99C is the most substantial exemption in the division in that it applies to entire new buildings or alterations to existing buildings. However, there are significant limits on the scope of this exemption. The exemption applies only to class 3 and class 9b buildings as defined in the Building Code; buildings such as dormitories, halls, libraries, classrooms and the like.
Importantly, there are limits around the size and location of the proposed building. It must not be within six metres of the block boundary in a residential zone. If the building is within 30 metres of the boundary of a block in a residential zone, its height must be no more than six metres above existing ground level. In all other cases, the height of the building must not be more than 12 metres above ground level. If the building does not meet these strict criteria, it is not DA exempt and it will require development approval. The exemption does not apply to school office or administration buildings.
In conclusion, judging from the nature of the regulation itself, the retention of section 1.99C exemption would not be inconsistent with overall exemption provisions in the planning and development regulations. This is also the finding of the review. In summary, the review found that the continuation of the exemptions was supported by both government and non-government education sectors. The review did not point to any extensive community or industry objections to the continuation of the exemptions.
It is the government’s view that the school exemptions in the division are appropriate, proportionate with the general exemptions, and have been effective in delivering timely and cost-effective outcomes for schools. They should therefore remain in place. Consistent with this position, schedule 1, section 1.99C should also remain in place. It is the government’s view that the exemptions are of value in their own right, irrespective of their historical role in securing funding under the BER or other
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video