Territory Stories

Debates Day 1 - Tuesday 23 November 1999

Details:

Title

Debates Day 1 - Tuesday 23 November 1999

Other title

Parliamentary Record 20

Collection

Debates for 8th Assembly 1997 - 2001; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 8th Assembly 1997 - 2001

Date

1999-11-23

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Language

English

Subject

Debates

Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication

Darwin

File type

application/pdf

Use

Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

License

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/279007

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/419429

Page content

DEBATES - Tuesday 23 November 1999 the right for members to have those final deliberations in private. Certainly people will know who those development consent members are and they will, from time to time, I imagine, lobby those members. That is fine. People in those sorts of positions will get lobbied all of the time. But I think they should be left in private to make their final decision. I move on to the member for Nightcliff and the comments he made. He has made a good point about third party appeals that have been abused elsewhere, so I wont go over that. He has outlined the role of government, who is elected to represent community members and the community at large and therefore are accountable to the community. The consent authoritys role to make determinations having regard to the planning scheme is a very good point. They are bound by the planning scheme and the act and the community role in developing that planning scheme. That is a very relevant point also. The community is involved in the initial development of the plans and the scheme. It certainly has a high involvement at that level and usually it is working from a base where there is already land use objectives that have been built on or added to and so forth. Just picking up on the major issue that the member for Nightcliff did raise, and that is to take on board that in developing the new NT scheme, we need to shape development to meet community expectations. He was referring to the historical nature of the zoning in Nightcliff. Like the Parap/Fannie Bay area, it has been subject to historical ongoing zonings that are now starting to cause some concern within the community and there is no doubt about that. Im happy to take it on board to see if we can do something to amend that or alleviate some of the concerns, which is what I have just done in recent months with the interface amendments that went out to the community for comment. To alleviate some of the concerns in regard to residents who surround a development block that might be an R3 and theyre an R1 for instance, what Ive done is make some amendments, interface amendments, to take care of the situation where the massing of the development that could occur on say an R3 surrounded by R1 is limited. It cant be down-zoned unless you want to get into the acquisition of a property right and pay the compensation that goes with that, but weve certainly done a lot of work in ensuring that there can be a limited development on a zoning that interfaces with a zoning of a lesser nature. We put that out for comment and didnt get one comment back on that. I thought the developers might go through the roof. Nobody has mentioned it, which is great, because it does reflect that the community is concerned about these sorts of things. But there are things we can do, and things that we are doing, and we will continue to do, to alleviate particularly those issues that have come about over time through the historical nature of the zonings that are in the older suburbs like Stuart Park, Fannie Bay, Parap and Nightcliff. I think that takes care of the issues that have been put forward. Well soon be going into committee stages. We have consulted far and wide with this act, for a long, long time. We have had a consultant. Its interesting to note that with all of the use that has been made of the Earl James report, some people out there have been commenting, including just recently the Leader of the Opposition, that weve only taken on 2 of the amendments of the Earl James report. Its interesting to note that out of the 46 recommendations we believe that probably up to 24 of those can be taken on board through the administrative processes and operationally. That was the point about the Earl James report. A lot of what he did recommend, we certainly would not put them in the act. They were calling for administrative and process-type changes that can be done in an operational day-to-day way. There will be more than just 2 taken on board, and we will work through those as the act comes into effect. In the last few minutes I will just go through some of the amendments that will be coming up. That is the reason why you have committee stages, to go through these and discuss and debate any amendments. I will be suggesting that words be added to the provisions at the start of the act relating to the three elements of the NT planning scheme so that it is stated clearly that they should be consistent, and any inconsistency that should occur between them as a result of one element being amended be removed by consequential amendment as soon as possible. This was an issue that was brought forward by one of the community groups and weve taken it on board. Section 17 of the bill refers to the publication of a gazettal notice during the exhibition period of an NT planning scheme amendment. The addition of the present tense to these clauses will clarify that the Gazette notice must be published while the proposed amendment is on exhibition - another community group proposal, a technical amendment. Matters to be taken into account by the Development Consent Authority when it considers development applications attracted some attention. Ill be presenting some further changes to fine-tune these provisions in committee through amendments to one clause and the addition of two new clauses. Ill be proposing that a new clause which deals with


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.