2015-10-13 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                             13 OCTOBER 2015


Clause 118 Limitation of levied charge
  Item (3)(a) – A previous use that is no longer taking place may not have previously paid
  or contributed to all the current networks that now apply today i.e. typically for all transport
  or stormwater networks. This should be changed so that that a previous use that no
  longer exists, will only be credited for those networks to which they have previously
  contributed to.
  Item (3)(b)(i)&(ii) - Concern is raised on potential legal implications in changing from:
  “land” to “premises”.
Clause 119 Requirements for infrastructure charges notice
  Item (1)(c) Concern is raised on potential legal implications in changing from: “land” to
  “premises”.
  Item (2) – Could be difficult to know when or when not to apply this. An applicant won’t
  know whether trunk infrastructure will be conditioned in the original approval so will still
  cause difficulties in the first instance. How offsets & refunds are to be applied should all
  be stated in resolutions.
  Suggest changing (1)(f) & delete (2) to:
  (f) whether an offset or refund under this part applies and, if so, information about the
  offset or refund, including when the refund will be given may follow once details have
  been fully determined.
  Item (3) – Changing the term from an “information” to “decision” notice is inappropriate as
  this term relates specifically to the development approval itself. Should therefore remain
  as an “information” notice as that is what it actually is in order to avoid any confusion.
Clause 123 Representations about infrastructure charges
  Item (6) – Should change 5 days to 10 days for consistency with (3) & other sections for
  consistency.
Clause 126 Necessary infrastructure conditions
  Item (2)(b) - The issue remains in that any necessary infrastructure condition is
  automatically considered as “trunk” and thereby is fully off-settable under clause 127
  even though it may be primarily required for the development itself.
Clause 127 Offset or refund requirements
  Refer also to comment to Clause 126 item (2)(b)
  There are situations where necessary conditions are primarily required for the
  development itself & therefore such offsets should just apply that amount that can be
  apportioned to other users and not the full cost. It is not equitable or fair & reasonable
  that Local Governments (i.e. the community) should have to bear full costs to facilitate
  individual development’s needs.
  Item (4) –the latest time proposed is simply not workable & also may not be equitable to
  either Development or Local Government depending on the specific scenario that arises.
  Also LGIP provision dates may be stated over a period (i.e. 2011–2016).rather than a
  specific date so then which date should it be? (i.e. 2011 or 2016?)
  Possible Scenario 1:
  The LGIP infrastructure proposed date is say 2016 and the construction start date &
  completion by the developer is later say 2025. Then under this proposal, the refund would
  need to be given immediately before the infrastructure is even provided. This is totally
  unacceptable & unequitable for Local Gov’t.



                                                                                 Page 14 of 110