Page 727 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 8 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
completely new framework for development proposals of territory significance. These proposals are designed to facilitate the fast-tracking of major development projects in the ACT. The first allows the executive to declare certain projects to be of major significance. These declarations will also be subject to an Assembly disallowance period. It allows the executive to vary the territory plan through a special precinct area variation that is also disallowable in the Assembly.
These two proposals are the ones in the legislation that require the most scrutiny. They are the ones that establish the framework for fast-tracking projects that must meet the criteria of both substantial public benefit and also be of major significance to the territory. The process for special precincts and projects follow very similar processes. However, a precinct proposal may include territory plan variations such as re-zoning.
The proposal is subject to community consultation for a minimum of 30 working days. The committee will have the opportunity to make comments, and key agencies such as the National Capital Authority, the Conservator for Flora and Fauna and the Heritage Council will be consulted. The ACT Planning and Land Authority will then provide a report on the consultation to the minister and then to the executive which assesses whether the proposal meets the criteria, taking into account public and agency comments. If approved by the executive, the project declaration becomes a disallowable instrument.
In a further disallowance period of six sitting days, which can be as little as three weeks but as much as three months, the Assembly has the opportunity to debate the merits of the project and to play a role in the decision-making process by disallowing the declaration. If the DI is not disallowed, the project declaration and relevant territory plan variations come into effect.
A development application can then be lodged, which will then go through the usual existing process of notification and consultation. Once ACTPLA has made a decision under this process, there is no opportunity for the minister to exercise call-in powers or for the public to access merits-based review in the ACAT. The only avenue for review will be the Supreme Court under common law.
There are also three new processes that are less major and are about streamlining. The first two essentially mean that the process can overlap or run concurrently rather than sequentially. Mr Coe has made some reference to those in his remarks, as the minister did when he introduced the legislation; so I will not reiterate those points. But these proposals have raised a number of issues for me as a Greens member, coming from a party with strong grassroots principles that we want to see embodied in our planning legislation.
This proposal is certainly not a new challenge for the Greens. We were faced with a similar challenge in 2009 when the federal government created a stimulus package to fund the development of social housing and school buildings. The ACT government was then required to fast-track these developments to ensure that they could be constructed within a short time frame, thus keeping the local construction industry afloat through potentially very difficult economic times. Appeal rights were lost for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video