Page 3859 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 19 September 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
An environmental impact statement is the highest level of impact assessment under the Planning and Development Act. While careful assessment of development proposals on contaminated land is a priority, it has become apparent that the regulatory burden associated with preparing an environmental impact statement may not always be appropriate for the relatively minor issues that can arise from consideration of a development proposal on a contaminated site.
For example, a development proposal to erect a sign on a block containing contaminated land is automatically placed into the impact track by operation of the schedule 4 trigger and requires an environmental impact statement to be prepared. A sign is usually a very minor development and may not even impact, or be located on, the part of the site which contains the contamination. Requiring an environmental impact statement in these circumstances may be an unnecessary regulatory burden.
In an effort to cut red tape and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, the government came to the view that the best way forward was to permit a proposal to be taken out of the impact track if an option is provided by the Planning and Land Authority to the effect that the proposal will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. It is the government’s view that this process ensures that proposed developments on contaminated land will be properly and carefully scrutinised but in a way that is not unnecessarily burdensome for proponents.
Mr Assistant Speaker, this is not something new. This sort of process is already available under the Planning and Development Act. Under schedule 4 of the act, a proposal impacting on an endangered species or the clearing of more than half a hectare of native vegetation can be taken out of the impact track if the Conservator of Flora and Fauna provides an environmental significance opinion indicating that the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact.
Similarly, a proposal involving a heritage place or object can be taken out of the impact track if the Heritage Council produces an environmental significance opinion that the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse impact. As you can see, Mr Assistant Speaker, the process proposed by the bill is something that has already been in practice for some time now and has been accepted by industry and the community.
However, it is important to note that development proposals on contaminated sites could still require assessment in the impact track if they trigger any of the other items in schedule 4 of the Planning and Development Act. For example, a development proposal might require an environmental impact statement if it was likely to result in significant impacts on protected matters, such as a matter of national environmental significance. Likewise, if a particular recycling facility was proposed, it might also be captured by one of the waste management triggers in schedule 4 and require an environmental impact statement. The specific clauses of the bill that set up the new processes are clauses 15 and 12.
Clause 15 amends item 7 of schedule 4 to provide that the impact track does not apply to a development proposal involving contaminated land if the Planning and Land
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video