Page 938 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As is the norm when people are confronted with the unknown, it is very common for them to think the worst. From an assessment perspective, the capacity to have all the planning information about the proposal at the same time will mean assessment officers can also consider the development application in a holistic manner. For example, an assessor could consider as a package a proposed variation to the territory plan, information on the environmental impacts of the proposal and the actual proposed development.
Another challenge of the current provisions of the act is the inability of the planning and land authority to accept a development application if the proposal or any part of the proposal is prohibited. It has become evident that this inability is resulting in the authority not being able to accept applications that may have real merit and result in good planning outcomes and are consistent with the policy intent of the draft variation. The bill rectifies this situation by allowing the authority to accept applications that include prohibited development in limited circumstances.
Let me make it abundantly clear that the bill protects the concept of prohibited development. The bill makes explicit the very limited circumstance when a DA can be accepted, and it is also very explicit that accepting a DA is no guarantee of subsequent approval of that DA. Not only does the bill make it explicit when a DA for prohibited development can be accepted, but it prohibits me, as the Minister for Planning and Land Management, and the planning and land authority from approving a DA for a prohibited development. Put simply, if at the time of deciding the DA the prohibition remains, the DA cannot be approved. This applies even if I wanted to call in the DA under section 158 of the Planning Act.
I will now talk more specifically about the new concurrent process proposed by the bill. The proposed amendments provide an opportunity for a proponent to elect to bring together certain independent planning processes into one streamlined concurrent process. The bill achieves this through amendments to chapter 5, the territory plan, chapter 7, development approvals, and chapter 8, environmental impact statements and inquiries.
Presently, chapter 7 of the act does not allow the authority to accept a development application without a completed environmental impact statement if one is required by the act or if the proposal or any part of the proposal is prohibited. This means that the DA must wait for a considerable period until the territory plan is varied and/or the EIS is completed.
The bill amends the act to allow a DA to be accepted ahead of the territory plan variation or completion of an EIS, in limited circumstances. However, the DA cannot be decided until the territory plan variation commences or the EIS is completed. If either the territory plan or draft EIS is rejected, refused or withdrawn, then the DA must be withdrawn. The efficiency achieved is that the development approval process can be progressing at the same time as the process of varying the territory plan or completing the EIS.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video