2015-10-22 Ordinary Meeting Agenda

ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA                                                        22 OCTOBER 2015


GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
19 OCTOBER 2015 - Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Sandy Bolton, Joe Jurisevic, Frank Pardon,
and Tony Wellington

Apologies: Crs Noel Playford and Bob Abbot

1    STATE PLANNING REFORM - DRAFT PLANNING BILLS
     That Council note the report by the Manager, Planning & Environment, Principal Strategic
     Planner and Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning & Organisation
     Committee Meeting dated 13 October 2015 and make a submission to the Department of
     Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning on the draft Planning Bills in accordance
     with the following:
     A.     The Planning & Development Bill and Planning & Development Regulations are not
            clear in the decision rules, particularly for those applications which conflict with the
            planning scheme. It is considered that where an application conflicts with the
            planning scheme, the onus of proof should be on the applicant to prove the merits
            of the proposal and justify any inconsistencies. Further, clear grounds and/or
            reasons should be required to be provided as part of the decision in order to ensure
            a transparent, accountable development assessment system for the community;
     B.     The definition of material change of use should not be limited to only increases in
            scale and density of the premises, as there are circumstances where reducing the
            scale of the development does materially change the site’s use. This is particularly
            relevant for developments which include an important community use or the like.
            For example removing the nursing home component from a retirement village may
            have a significant social impact on an area;
     C.     Case law on the SPA definition of ‘use’ makes it clear that secondary uses forming
            part of a primary use must not only be incidental, but also necessarily associated
            such that it would be impossible for the primary use to be carried out in the absence
            of the incidental use. The definition proposed in the Bill related to ‘use’
            fundamentally expands the activities that may be carried out because secondary
            activities need not be necessarily associated with the primary use to be considered
            part of that use and as a result, lawful. The regulation and enforcement of activities
            that were not contemplated as part of a development approval (although ancillary)
            may prove problematic for councils and undermine local communities’
            understanding of the development process;
     D.     The removal of the requirement to consider whether a person may make a properly
            made submission objecting to change from the minor change test is likely to
            undermine the communities input into development assessment matters,
            particularly where they may be impacted upon by a proposed change;
     E.     The Planning Bill maintains and extends the time frame for applicants to be able
            revive a development application where it lapses. This ability is not consistent with
            the principles for the DA Rules of being an applicant driven process, and is likely to
            create administrative problems for councils and lead to significant confusion for the
            community, particularly submitters;
     F.     In the absence of demonstrable net benefit, no change is sought to the existing
            levels of assessment or the terms used (i.e. code and impact) in the new legislation;
     G.     The proposed extension of Infrastructure Designation to privately owned
            infrastructure is a significant policy shift and would remove due consideration by the
            community, third party appeal rights and the need to comply with the planning
            scheme. Infrastructure charges revenue would be forfeited and would result in a
            considerable cost shift onto councils and their local communities. Statutory

                                                                                      Page 9 of 20