Page 1263 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Before I come to the provisions themselves I would like to briefly outline the key concepts achieved by provisions at clauses 34 and 37. In layman’s terms, the bill allows a proponent to lodge a development application in anticipation of a draft territory plan or in response to variations already open to public consultation or where the Planning and Land Authority has determined, against prescribed criteria, that an encroachment of a minor part of the proposed development would deliver good and sensible planning outcomes.
There are two principal benefits from allowing this earlier lodgement, and I think Mr Rattenbury mentioned them in his speech. Firstly, it brings together these three planning administrative processes at the notification stage. Secondly, the community has access to the comprehensive set of planning information to consider as a whole; dispelling the long-held dilemma for the community in trying to second guess just what a draft variation would actually mean on the ground.
There are, however, subtle differences related to a variation and a DA that I would like to draw attention to. The first is that if a draft variation has already been notified for consultation, the variation itself need not be renotified if and when a development application is lodged in response to that variation. A DA in this circumstance would not be a concurrent DA unless, coincidently, the application also triggered the need for an environmental assessment. The other difference is that if a development application is lodged in anticipation of a draft variation yet to be notified, the DA itself can only go through the normal pre-assessment checking processes and will not be notified until the related variation is ready to be notified.
As noted by Mr Rattenbury in his speech, both the development application—now called a concurrent DA—and the draft variation must be notified at the same time. If for whatever reason the variation is not progressed within six months, the application is taken to be withdrawn.
Madam Speaker, clause 34 inserts new sections 137AA, 137AB and 137AD forming the first part of the amendments that relate principally to the new concurrent DA process and include the three ways an application for development approval for otherwise prohibited development can be made. These sections work with provisions inserted at clause 37 to create the legislative framework for concurrent DAs.
I stress that these new mechanisms to lodge a development application for otherwise prohibited developments are not designed to avoid having to meet the rules and criteria set out in the territory plan. Typically, it is envisaged that these new processes will be used for substantial developments that warrant adjustments to the territory plan. For example, the desirability of a more compact and sustainable city that responds to changing lifestyle and housing choices requires innovative solutions that may not be currently catered for in the territory plan.
I would now like to go through each of these new sections in more detail. New section 137AA—applications in anticipation of territory plan variation made before draft plan variation prepared—allows a proponent to bring forward for consideration a proposal that requires a variation to the territory plan. In essence, this process already
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video