Development Assessment Regulations

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (16:15): I move:

That the regulations made under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 concerning development assessment, made on 27 June 2019 and laid on the table of this council on 2 July 2019, be disallowed.

I move this disallowance motion but I first want to acknowledge that the Development Assessment Regulations, tabled in this chamber on 2 July, form an important part of the state's transition to our new planning system.

In accordance with provisions in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, the Development Assessment Regulations prescribe the processes through which development applications will be assessed under the state's new planning rules. As the Labor opposition has previously indicated, much of the policy intent contained in the regulations is desirable. For instance, the shadow minister for planning, the member for Light, in the other place, has already indicated that setting time limits for development assessment processes is desirable.

Residents, landlords and businesses should not have relatively simple development applications held up because of inefficient bureaucratic processes. It should be acknowledged that many councils already have exemplary records in processing development applications quickly, but there exists an inconsistency across the local government sector which can be improved through the establishment of maximum assessment time periods.

It should be remembered that the act made provision for 'deemed planning consent' whereby a development application can be approved once the applicable maximum development assessment time period has been exceeded. But as with any piece of legislation, the devil is in the detail—in this case, the regulatory detail.

Consultation with councils and planning practitioners has revealed unease about the inadequacy of some of the time frames set down for performance assessed development applications under the Development Assessment Regulations. Under the deemed planning consent model, there is concern that some development applications may be refused because of inadequate information having been submitted by a proponent prior to the expiration of the relevant assessment time period.

In these circumstances, more assessment time could result in the planning authority and proponent reaching a mutually agreeable development application and subsequently achieving development approval. In this light, Labor believes it would be prudent if the development assessment time periods were reviewed in consultation with councils and planning practitioners. Planning practitioners have also expressed concerns about the Development Assessment Regulations' extension to accredited professional land surveyors the authority to provide planning consent for deemed-to-satisfy land divisions.

Many planners have expressed significant doubt about the independence of private certifiers in the planning system. It is feared that a conflict of interest may arise for the land surveyor in this instance, given their service to the client—a development proponent—and their obligations as a planning authority. Concern has particularly arisen amidst evidence of the shortcomings of private certification in the building industry where private certifiers throughout Australia have approved apartment buildings with dangerous and flammable cladding, as well as other features also found not to be compliant with the Building Code of Australia.

The Labor opposition is moving this disallowance motion because we believe further consideration and consultation needs to be undertaken with the parliament, councils and planning professionals about how elements of the Development Assessment Regulations can be improved to facilitate the approval of appropriate developments. I commend the motion to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.