2015-10-13 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                            13 OCTOBER 2015


  Possible Scenario 2 (reverse of 1):
  The LGIP infrastructure proposed date is say 2025 and the construction start &
  completion date by the developer is earlier say 2016. Then under this proposal, the
  refund would only need to be given by 2025 some 9 years after provision & would be
  unequitable for the developer.
  The timing of refunds should be left to individual LG resolutions to cater for their particular
  circumstances and ability.
Clause 132 Refund if development in PIA
  Item (2)(a) - Why should any refund apply if the development exceeds the scale of
  development from that assumed in the LGIP per clause 130 (2)(b). This is inequitable to
  Local Government where the development is not complying with Planning Schemes,
  LGIP’s & the integrity of the infrastructure planning statutory guidelines.
  Item (2)(b) – How can this be the subject of a charge when the charge is not directly
  linked to the cost of infrastructure & cannot change the maximum allowable charge to
  include this cost?
Clause 136 Application of this subdivision
  Still disagree with concept of Conversion applications as PIP’s/LGIP’s approved by State
  details all that is Trunk for the period in question & any development outside should
  provide additional infrastructure that is specifically required for it to proceed should be
  fully undertaken by the development at its cost & not subsidised by the community.
Clause 137 Application to convert infrastructure to trunk infrastructure
  Item (2) – whilst the time for making such applications is proposed to be limited to 1 year,
  it still creates bureaucratic duplication of additional work for Local Government at a later
  time. All this should be undertaken through representations during the normal negotiation
  stage process.
Clause 138 Deciding conversion application
  As per clause 137 comment


Clause 139 Notice of decision
  Item 139 (1) – As for comment to 119 Item (3) – Changing the term from a “notice ” to
  “decision” notice is inappropriate as this term relates specifically to the development
  approval itself. The wording should therefore remain simply as a “notice” to avoid any
  confusion.
Clause 140 Effect of and action after conversion
  As per clause137 comment
  Item (5) – Incorrect cross-reference to 248 that has no relevance to this section (i.e.
  refers to Enforcement notices in Part 4 Appeals to P&E Court)


Part 4 Infrastructure agreements
Clause 150 Content of infrastructure agreement; and
Clause 153 When infrastructure agreement binds successors in title
  Concern is raised on potential legal implications in changing from: “land” to “premises”.




                                                                                Page 15 of 110