Page 1564 - Week 05 - Thursday, 15 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Development Act to give ACTPLA authority to allow the transfer of a lease on land subject to building and development provisions where the lease is a holding lease. A holding lease is usually a short-term lease granted to allow for urban development and subdivision. It requires the developer to construct and return public infrastructure to the territory in return for a crown lease. This clause also removes the requirement for the land to be subdivided. This is a sensible amendment as it should reduce delay in the sale and development of land which has previously occurred due to the requirement to subdivide.
Clauses 13, 15 and 16 contain technical amendments relating to the relevant decision maker for a reviewable decision. Clause 14 amends the Planning and Development Act to clarify that the act applies to the University of Canberra lease. This amendment ensures that the lessee can make a lease variation and the territory is able to enforce the lease provisions. Clause 17 amends the Planning and Development Regulation to resolve inconsistencies surrounding exemptions to the requirement to submit a survey certificate along with a development application.
The opposition has serious concerns about clause 18, which limits the ability for a development proponent to modify a development which is under construction without the need for an application to amend the approved plans. This provision means a builder will be required to strictly comply with the development approval unless they apply for an amendment, even for items that would otherwise be exempt. Requiring an amendment for even the simplest of variations from the DA places an unnecessary burden on builders and ordinary Canberrans having renovations done to their homes.
I have been informed that variations that would require approval could be things as minor as the size of a window or the way a door opens. People in the industry have told me that practically every project involves some minor variation. Requiring a formal amendment to the DA for every variation is absurd. It will slow down construction and place another piece of red tape on an already congested bureaucratic industry.
This government supposedly wants to speed up development and reduce unnecessary restrictions on the construction industry. Instead, this provision is placing an even greater burden on an industry that is already heavily regulated. It seems inconsistent that the government is clamping down in this bill but still has a long list of exempt developments that, had they be done on their own, would not require a DA.
The government, including Mr Rattenbury, may well say this is all about neighbours getting what the DA states on an adjacent property. However, structures like a garage, carport, gazebo, swimming pool and many others are exempt and, at present, no development approval is required. Yet the government is clamping down on minor alterations in a house extension. It seems inconsistent. Like the government, we think the exempt development provisions are working okay. They could always be improved, but tightening the reins on minor amendments seems odd and will simply lead to higher costs for builders, families and ACTPLA.
The opposition is also concerned that the government has included a serious policy change in this omnibus bill which is supposed to contain only minor amendments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video