DEVELOPMENT POLICY

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:07): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government in this place and Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question concerning development rules.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I have been consulted by constituents residing in Whiteleaf Crescent, Glengowrie, who for some considerable time have been concerned about a so-called four-row house development in their street. Application for planning approval was made to the Marion council and after that application had been made, at the suggestion of the council, the four-row houses, which would not be complying with the development plan, were separated notionally and turned into two semi-detached dwellings.

The residents in Whiteleaf Crescent were deeply concerned about the effect on their environment of this bulky development. They were also concerned by what appeared to them to be a number of serious variations between the proposal and the Marion development plan. These matters are as important as the site coverage, floor area ratios, parking provisions, garaging provisions, set backs from both the street and the side, provisions relating to natural light, on-site stormwater management and so on. These were very serious concerns. The council did not accept their concerns but rejected them out of hand, in effect, and appeared to the constituents to favour the developer in this proposal. The constituents actually wrote to the minister in July 2008.

The response they received from the minister was in the form of a letter, in respect of which the word processing machine seems to have gone berserk. However, the letter does say, in one of the several paragraphs that is repeated, that their only action would be to exercise their rights under section 85 of the Development Act and go to the great expense of applying to the Environment, Resources and Development Court. As they are ordinary citizens, that expense was not warranted. The council dismissed their concerns. The Ombudsman accepted the Marion council's assurances without actually undertaking an independent investigation. My questions are:

1. Is there any body, apart from the court, charged with responsibility for ensuring that councils do comply with the provisions of the Development Act and strictly comply with those provisions? The minister, from his own correspondence, suggests that he does not see that as his responsibility.

2. Does the minister believe that there ought to be some official established with that supervisory or monitoring role over councils, apart from the highly formal and expensive process of litigation?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:11): I am aware that a couple in Whiteleaf Crescent did write to me, as did their local member of parliament, Mr McFetridge. As the honourable member said, I did write back to them in July last year. I am also aware that the Ombudsman was investigating, and I will take the honourable member's word for it that he has completed that investigation. I also understand that a complaint has been made to OCBA in relation to that issue, but obviously I am unable to comment on that. I am not sure whether or not the issue has been resolved.

Essentially, of the 63,000 or so development applications that have been put before authorities this year, the vast majority of those (over 90 per cent) have been to local government; they are the principal authorities. I understand that, in this particular case, it was a merit application, and the council determined accordingly.

As the Minister for Urban Development and Planning, my role is as set out under the Development Act. The Environment, Resources and Development Court is the appropriate authority to appeal against planning decisions made by local government. Over the past couple of decades, various governments, through the Environment, Resources and Development Court as the court of appeal, have attempted to make appeals against those decisions less burdensome than with other courts.

As the honourable member would be aware, I was asked a question yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition about part 12 of the Development Act, that part that particularly relates to private certification. In a lot of cases, private certifiers are the ones involved in certifying to the relevant authorities that a building has met the appropriate standards. As I indicated yesterday, clearly, there are issues that need to be addressed in relation to auditing those decisions, and that is one of the things I hope this new select committee will address.

I understand that the opposition has reservations about participating in the select committee. I hope that is not the case, because this is an important area of law. I hope the opposition does participate in that lower house committee, because I think there are some very important issues here in relation to what level of auditing and supervision is necessary in relation to building rule decisions.

The issues in this case are probably more planning than building decisions, although they may well overlap into the building area. To answer the honourable member's question, clearly in a little over four years now as Minister for Urban Development and Planning I have certainly become aware that there are some gaps in the planning and development laws and, as I said, some of those I hope will be addressed by that lower house committee.

Ultimately, for the vast majority of the 63,000 planning decisions we have in this state, local government is the appropriate authority, and this government does not wish to usurp that role. However, through our changes to the planning rules, in particular, the residential development code, we are hoping that, if up to 70 per cent of the building and planning decisions can be codified, that will enable councils to concentrate more of their planning efforts into the merit applications—the more complex decisions—and therefore we hope there will be better outcomes for local government in terms of their assessing development applications if their resources are better employed towards the more difficult cases rather than the more straightforward ones.

In this instance, given the nature of the building, it may well have been one of those more complex cases. Apart from that, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to say much more about that particular case, given that I assume some legal action or action by OCBA may still be outstanding in relation to that case.