Page 318 - Week 01 - Thursday, 12 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The third key feature of this legislation is that ACTPLA is able to make declarations stating that a development is related to light rail, and this is a key part of this bill. One clear example of the use of this declaration is that we know that about seven transformers need to be installed for the initial stage of the city to Gungahlin section, and this legislation will help that process.
The fourth feature is that territory plan variations that specifically facilitate light rail will have a revised committee timetable expectation of reporting within six months but not before three months. This means variations will still be subject to inquiry using the same processes outlined in our standing orders. I do not believe this is a problem. The planning committee should be able to run a full and open process within this time frame and it still allows for the full public consultation process within committee inquiries.
The fifth feature is that ACTPLA, as the decision-maker, may depart from entity advice—that is, that of the Conservator for Flora and Fauna or the Heritage Council—on declared light rail related proposals in relation to registered trees and declared heritage sites only if they meet criteria relating to project risks. These criteria, as outlined in section 119A for merit track and section 138A for impact track, are quite specific and they can be used only if ACTPLA is satisfied that following the entity’s advice will risk significant delay or impediment to the commencement or completion of the proposed development or will risk significant cost increases.
I make it clear as a Greens member that I am fully aware this could be a contentious issue and we do not take lightly the overriding of entity advice on registered trees or declared tree sites. It is also of importance to note that the application of these criteria does not apply in relation to protected matters—that is, matters of national threatened or endangered species that fall under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Members and the public may be disappointed to hear that, although our current planning processes include these referrals, the legislation is quite weak in these areas and ACTPLA is already able to make decisions contrary to Heritage Council or conservator recommendations.
I know that some people are wondering why these clauses are needed, given this ability to override entity advice. I feel this bill probably strikes the right balance between ensuring that all the right environmental issues are being considered while also keeping our eye on the end game—in this case the rollout of light rail for the benefit of all Canberrans. To clarify, I underline the fact that all other environmental considerations in this legislation still stand. The Greens do not support any erosion of protection of our biodiversity in our planning system.
The last key change in this bill is the reduction in requirements for documentation accompanying a development application for light rail related proposals. This is a reflection of the more simple requirements for infrastructure proposals as opposed to residential or mixed use building proposals. It is worth noting that the development applications must still follow the rest of the standard DA process, including consultation requirements. If the proposal falls into the impact track, it still requires an EIS or an environmental significance opinion. In my view, this bill provides a better
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video