Page 1261 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The amendments allow a proposal to be assessed on its merits in the context of the needs of the ACT community at the time. The DA continues through the usual public notification, agency referral and assessment stages prescribed by the act. The DA can only be approved if the territory plan is varied in a way that would allow the proposal.
A new process is also introduced by the bill to allow a technical variation of the territory plan in certain circumstances. A proponent can apply to have a declaration made by the authority that an encroachment onto unleased territory land or land leased by the territory would, if approved, deliver a good planning outcome.
If a declaration is made, the territory plan can be varied through a technical variation. However, if a declaration is made, the technical amendment has a longer consultation period than the usual technical amendment. This is because the effect of the declaration is a possible zone change. The consultation period is not less than 35Â working days, which is longer than the normal 30 working days for a full draft territory plan variation or the 20 working days for other technical amendments that require limited consultation. This longer period is warranted as the community will receive both the TA and the DA to consider and make comment on.
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. The bill also reduces red tape by amending the act to allow the authority to specify in the scoping document for an EIS the time in which a draft EIS must be provided. The default time period is 18 months but clause 56 provides that the authority can specify a shorter time period.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the authority to consider the complexity of the proposal in an environmental context and the timing of certain elements of the assessment. For example, if a particular study of a species is required, that study may be done only at a certain point in the year, depending perhaps on the seasons or on an animal’s movements. Other amendments tie the EIS process to the DA process if a DA and draft EIS are lodged concurrently.
Finally, I want to talk about the concurrent consultation period. A new concurrent consultation period is defined by the bill as a period of not less than 35 working days. This is generally longer than the period stipulated by the act for the various individual processes but shorter than the combined consultation periods for each process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video