2015-10-22 Ordinary Meeting Minutes

ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES                                                        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

The following Recommendations from the General Committee were adopted
without discussion or further amendment.

Council Resolution
Moved:           Cr Wilkie
Seconded:        Cr Jurisevic
The General Committee recommendations dated 19 October 2015 be adopted.
                                                                                            Carried.


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;




                                                                                       Page 8 of 12