Page 1260 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill changes this by allowing a DA to be accepted ahead of a 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 If either the territory plan or draft EIS is rejected, refused or withdrawn, the DA must be withdrawn. The efficiency achieved is that the development approval process can be progressing at the same time—rather than separately—as the process of varying the territory plan or completing the EIS.
From the proponent’s point of view, the option of concurrent lodgement does come with some risk, and I note that Mr Coe spoke about this. 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application being rejected on the basis that the EIS or draft territory plan variation is rejected, refused or withdrawn.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 allows for concurrent development applications where a DA is notified at the same time as a draft territory plan variation and/or a draft environmental impact assessment. A draft territory plan variation and draft EIS can never be a concurrent process alone. The DA forms the starting point for all concurrent processes.
Certain planning processes requiring public notification, consultation and representations are linked. 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 a period 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 35 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 in these regards.
With respect to concurrent development applications and territory plan variations, 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 amendments made by the bill apply in the situation where a development application cannot be granted under the existing territory plan but could possibly be granted if the proposed territory plan variation were approved. The provisions permit a proponent to lodge a development application on the basis of a proposed territory plan variation rather than on the basis of the existing territory plan.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video