2015-01-12 General Committee Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                     12 January 2015


REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE
1    QUEENSLAND PLANNING REFORM INCLUDING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
     BILL

Author             Principal Strategic Planner, Rowena Skinner
                   Manager, Planning & Environment, Kerri Coyle
                   Planning & Infrastructure Department

Index              ECM/Subject/Planning Instruments\State Planning

Attachments        Nil


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an update on the Queensland Planning Reform Process including the
proposed Planning & Development Bill, the Planning and Development Regulations, Planning &
Environment Court Bill, Queensland Planning Provisions and proposed changes to the SEQ
Regional Plan. It expands on the previous report of September 2014 when many aspects of the
planning reform (including the draft regulations) were still unavailable for consideration.

RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner and the Manager, Planning &
Environment to the General Committee dated 12 January 2015 and request the Chief Executive
Officer to make a submission to the Parliamentary Committee regarding the following points:
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;
B.       The Planning & Development Bill includes a clause that allows a regulation to prescribe
         the assessment manager for a development application as any person from a class of
         persons who have stated qualifications or characteristics. It is unclear whether this will
         result in an additional class of private entities (chosen by the Minister) being identified as
         assessment managers in place of councils for particular applications. This is of significant
         concern as experience has demonstrated that private building certification has not always
         been successful in implementing planning scheme requirements. This is particularly
         important for any operational works applications that include works which are to become
         a public asset and be maintained at ratepayers expense;
C.       The Planning & Environment Court Bill maintains the specific criteria for making a costs
         order introduced with the Sustainable Planning and other Legislation Amendment Bill
         2012. These rules do not serve the public interest of enabling the community, submitters,
         local governments and developers to dispute planning decisions due to the risk and
         uncertainty of the Court awarding costs against them. The previous Court powers to
         award costs in circumstances where cases were frivolous or vexatious or instituted
         primarily to delay or obstruct are considered sufficient protections from abuse of the
         system;
D.       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; and
                                                                                       Page 3 of 147