2015-10-22 Ordinary Meeting Minutes

ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES                                                  22 OCTOBER 2015


    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
         requirements around community infrastructure should at a minimum enable council
         to have a statutory role similar to a referral agency and allow consideration of local
         planning instruments in the designation process;
    H.   Key process matters (including the development assessment process) should not
         be moved from the principal legislation and into subordinate legislation, given the
         potential negative outcomes for Councils and the broader community. The
         framework should be located in one statutory instrument to ensure genuine review
         processes cannot be expedited without due consultation and engagement;
    I.   Attachment 1 of this report which includes comment on Draft Planning Bills
         provisions relating to Infrastructure Charges as amended at the Planning &
         Organisation Committee dated 13 October 2015;
    J.   Attachment 2 of this report which includes feedback to the Department of
         Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning on the specific issues the
         Department requested comment on;
    K.   The ability to opt-out of an information request in the Development Assessment
         Rules is likely to add significant complexity to the development assessment process
         without adding value, as an applicant has multiple options in regard to giving a
         response to a request for further information. It is critical that Councils and state
         agencies retain the ability to raise issues and identify further information that is
         required in order to fully understand and assess development proposals. The opt-
         out step should be deleted from the Development Assessment Rules;
    L.   The ability for applicants to determine at what point during the assessment stage
         public notification will occur, including prior to a response to responding to an
         information request, is likely to significantly complicate the development
         assessment process in contravention of the intended outcome. This ‘floating’ public
         notification will also impact on local government systems and process due to
         inconsistency in regard to when public notification will take place. Further the
         purpose of public notification is to assist community members in being informed of
         the proposed development, yet a ‘floating’ public notification undermines certainty
         and community confidence in understanding the planning processes and
         development proposals. It is critical that the community have all the information
         about a development proposal, including responses to Council’s information
         request, when making submissions to a development application. The public
         notification should only occur after responses to the information request have been
         received and thus made public.
    M.   The removal of existing requirements for notices to be placed in local newspapers is
         also not supported as it may limit the ability for the community to be aware of
         development proposals and engagement in planning and development decisions;



                                                                                 Page 9 of 12