Page 1566 - Week 05 - Thursday, 15 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Planning and Development Act 2007, the Planning and Development Regulation 2008, the Unit Titles Act 2001 and the Utilities Act 2000.
The government has agreed to put forward an amendment to this bill by proposing to omit clause 18 of the bill. Let me turn to clause 18 and some of the issues raised by other members in the debate this morning. This section sets out certain limited circumstances in which the construction of a development can depart from the terms of a development approval without requiring a new or amended approval.
The regulation is made under section 198C of the Planning and Development Act. Currently, section 35 of the regulation permits the construction to differ from the approval if the difference amounts to development that would be exempt from requiring approval if it were to occur as a stand-alone exercise some time after the initial construction was completed.
The government is aware of a number of concerns that have been raised with it which suggest that in practice these types of departures from the approved plans have proven to be highly problematic. The government often receives complaints from members of the community about these types of departures.
These complaints suggest that the permitted changes can often result in construction that differs noticeably in appearance from the development as approved or as notified for public comment. For example, the exterior wall of a residence might appear as stonework on an approved plan but be constructed with other material in practice. The property fence might be approved as a colorbond fence but end up being built as a timber fence.
Clause 18 would have removed the ability for builders to make such departures. In doing so, the clause would have ensured that the appearance of the development as built did not differ significantly from the development indicated in the building plans approved by the development approval, and this would have given certainty to neighbours and others that what was approved is what would be built.
I would add that the amendment would not have prevented the proponent from pursuing such changes by other more transparent means. Existing section 197 of the Planning and Development Act would have still permitted the proponent to apply to the authority for amendment of the development approval to permit proposed changes without having to lodge an entirely new DA. So it is wrong of Mr Coe to assert otherwise. This change would not have required new DAs in every circumstance. Variations could have been approved through the existing section 197 mechanism without the need to lodge an entirely new DA.
The authority is able to amend the approval provided the change is relatively minor. Public notification of the proposed change may or may not be required, depending on the assessment of its extent and impacts. But the important thing to stress is that this would have meant no surprises for neighbours or others affected by the proposed development.
It would have meant that a neighbour would not have gone to sleep one night knowing that the approved plans provided for a colorbond fence on their boundary, only to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video