Page 939 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
From the proponent’s point of view, the option of concurrent lodgement comes with some risk. The proponent risks the development application being rejected on the basis that the EIS or draft territory plan variation is rejected, refused or withdrawn. For this reason, the concurrent process is optional rather than mandatory.
The bill inserts a new division 7.3.2A that introduces the concept of concurrent development applications at chapter 7. A concurrent development application is an application that is notified at the same time as a draft territory plan variation and/or a draft environmental impact statement. Through the use of definitions, the bill links certain planning processes that require public notification, consultation and representations.
While linking processes, the amendments do not change existing processes except in relation to consultation periods and the time for deciding the DA. A longer consultation period is provided to the norm, and the decision on the DA is delayed until the concurrent processes are completed. If a DA is running concurrently with a draft territory plan variation, the DA will be assessed against the territory plan as if it has been varied in accordance with the proposed variation.
Concurrent development applications will have a longer public consultation period of not less than 35 working days, which allows sufficient time for the community to comment on the additional accompanying concurrent documents, that is, the draft territory plan variation and/or the draft EIS as well as the DA. A period longer than 35Â working days can be provided to reflect the complexity of the proposal.
The bill does not change entity referrals, publication of submissions or appeal rights. If a requirement exists now, the requirement remains unchanged. The bill enables a development application to be made and assessed against a proposed draft territory plan variation. This allows the development application to progress at the same time as the relevant territory plan variation is progressed. There is considerable time saving and efficiency in permitting these two processes to proceed in tandem rather than in a linear, sequential manner. The DA can be approved only if the territory plan is varied in a way that would allow the proposal.
The bill includes another new efficiency option for possible use by a proponent of a development proposal. The bill permits a development application to be lodged with a draft EIS as opposed to a completed EIS. This option applies to the assessment of development applications in the impact assessment track. Such development applications would ordinarily require the completion of an environmental impact statement before the application can be lodged. The bill permits the proponent to complete the required EIS in tandem with the assessment of the development application itself.
Under this option, the public consultation on the draft EIS occurs at the same time as the public notification of the relevant development application. As well as saving time, the concurrent process permits the public to consider the draft EIS in the context of the actual development application. This gives the public a better understanding of the overall proposal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video