Page 4162 - Week 13 - Thursday, 27 November 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
amount to months or, in some cases, years. This uncertainty can be especially problematic for developments that are a high priority for the government and community when their implementation in a timely and certain manner is of prime importance. The review process can also mean uncertainty as to the final outcome of the development approval process.
The bill proposes some limitations on these review processes to improve efficiency and administrative certainty for the capital metro light rail project. Development approvals relating to light rail and associated infrastructure will not be subject to third-party ACAT merit review. In addition, the bill amends the AD(JR) Act to provide that review under the AD(JR) Act does not apply to a decision in relation to a development proposal related to light rail. The ability to seek review by the Supreme Court under the common law is retained; however, time limits will apply.
However, these restrictions on review will not apply to development approval decisions involving a “protected matter” as defined by the recently passed Planning and Development (Bilateral Agreement) Amendment Act 2014. The bilateral agreement amendment act was made to enable the commonwealth to accredit ACT environmental assessment processes under the proposed “one-stop shop” process. Full review rights are retained for these decisions to protect matters of national environmental significance and to retain the potential for a one-stop shop approval process here in the ACT consistent with negotiations with the commonwealth. In other words, the existing legislation on matters of national environmental significance will not be affected by the proposed measures.
I would also like to add that, apart from the proposed limitations on review, the development application, assessment and approval process, including public notification and the right to comment, remains the same as for standard development applications.
I would at this point like to make the observation that there are a number of precedents, both here and interstate, for restrictions on review rights.
In New South Wales and Queensland, for example, I am advised that third-party merit review rights apply only to relatively complex major projects, that is, the equivalent of an impact track assessable matter here in the ACT. I am told there are no third-party merit review rights in Western Australia, and in South Australia they are limited to developments known as “category 3” developments.
It is also worth noting that in New South Wales, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 permits key infrastructure to be declared as critical state significant infrastructure if it is considered essential for economic, social or environmental reasons. The declaration has the effect of removing statutory rights of third-party review.
Under Queensland’s Economic Development Act 2012, a priority development area can be declared by regulation. The area is then removed from the planning and development process in Queensland’s Sustainable Planning Act 2009, and is subject
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video