Mr WOOD - 2003-04-29
Minister, my question is in regard to the development application for Northern Territory Portion 3951, Petrick Road, Alice Springs, which you gave a direction to the Development Consent Authority not to approve. In your reasons for not approving this subdivision, you stated:
The subdivision of land less than two hectares within the RL2 zone to the extent proposed and in this area is considered a significant departure from the direction provided by the NT Planning Scheme.
In your reply to the shadow minister for planning on 18 February this year, you said:
… my department advised me that there is a legal doubt as to whether the notice …
The direction:
…needs to be tabled in parliament, because I have not directed the DCA to ban a specific development.
On the same day, when you did table the direction, you said:
The action I took was not to a specific development application but to all possible applications which would be below two hectare lots in size.
Considering the reasons for your decisions were specific to this subdivision, and that the Litchfield Area Plan still allows the Development Consent Authority to waiver below the two hectares minimum, regardless of you saying your direction was …
Madam SPEAKER: Your question, member.
Mr WOOD: … for all possible applications, isn’t your statement inaccurate and misleading? Because the direction was not presented to parliament within three sitting days, isn’t your decision now invalid?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, that was rather lengthy and you know that.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. Yes, I directed the authority in Alice Springs not to approve a subdivision less than two hectares - not a specific subdivision, but any subdivision in the area, for the simple reason there was overwhelming support for my decision. Actually, members of the CLP lobbied me not to approve that subdivision. The member for Macdonnell, if I remember, was very vocal at the time. It was front page in the newspapers, urging the government not to succumb to pressure by developers or members of his own party and proceed with the subdivision.
The other thing was that this particular subdivision was an island subdivision. Almost all of the other blocks in the area were at least two hectares in area. The only previous subdivision was done by the same developer, approved by the then CLP minister, Max Ortmann. Once again, at the time the subdivision was approved, the developer did not take up the subdivision and he let it lapse. He came back again with a nearly five hectare piece of land to subdivide to four blocks - a significant variation from the two hectares that the town planning specifies in the particular area - 1.25 hectare average, when every other block was two hectares. As you would understand, the outcry from the local community was significant, people did not want to live in a high density area, they wanted a minimum two hectare subdivision, and I will stick to my decision.
As for the question about the legality or not, I ask you to have a look at section 85 of the Planning Act. The Planning Act was actually passed in this parliament by the CLP government, and it clearly states that I have to table a particular direction if I direct the authority on a specific subdivision. I also have here a copy which I actually sent to Mr John Pinney, the Chairman of the DCA at the time, on 4 December 2002, and I am prepared to table this document. It does not say: ‘Do not approve Mr Hornsby’s subdivision’. It said: ‘Do not allow any subdivision less than two hectares’. As for the Litchfield Shire, if people are against this kind of subdivision, and they make noise and they give me good arguments, I am prepared to do the samethere.
The subdivision of land less than two hectares within the RL2 zone to the extent proposed and in this area is considered a significant departure from the direction provided by the NT Planning Scheme.
In your reply to the shadow minister for planning on 18 February this year, you said:
… my department advised me that there is a legal doubt as to whether the notice …
The direction:
…needs to be tabled in parliament, because I have not directed the DCA to ban a specific development.
On the same day, when you did table the direction, you said:
The action I took was not to a specific development application but to all possible applications which would be below two hectare lots in size.
Considering the reasons for your decisions were specific to this subdivision, and that the Litchfield Area Plan still allows the Development Consent Authority to waiver below the two hectares minimum, regardless of you saying your direction was …
Madam SPEAKER: Your question, member.
Mr WOOD: … for all possible applications, isn’t your statement inaccurate and misleading? Because the direction was not presented to parliament within three sitting days, isn’t your decision now invalid?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, that was rather lengthy and you know that.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. Yes, I directed the authority in Alice Springs not to approve a subdivision less than two hectares - not a specific subdivision, but any subdivision in the area, for the simple reason there was overwhelming support for my decision. Actually, members of the CLP lobbied me not to approve that subdivision. The member for Macdonnell, if I remember, was very vocal at the time. It was front page in the newspapers, urging the government not to succumb to pressure by developers or members of his own party and proceed with the subdivision.
The other thing was that this particular subdivision was an island subdivision. Almost all of the other blocks in the area were at least two hectares in area. The only previous subdivision was done by the same developer, approved by the then CLP minister, Max Ortmann. Once again, at the time the subdivision was approved, the developer did not take up the subdivision and he let it lapse. He came back again with a nearly five hectare piece of land to subdivide to four blocks - a significant variation from the two hectares that the town planning specifies in the particular area - 1.25 hectare average, when every other block was two hectares. As you would understand, the outcry from the local community was significant, people did not want to live in a high density area, they wanted a minimum two hectare subdivision, and I will stick to my decision.
As for the question about the legality or not, I ask you to have a look at section 85 of the Planning Act. The Planning Act was actually passed in this parliament by the CLP government, and it clearly states that I have to table a particular direction if I direct the authority on a specific subdivision. I also have here a copy which I actually sent to Mr John Pinney, the Chairman of the DCA at the time, on 4 December 2002, and I am prepared to table this document. It does not say: ‘Do not approve Mr Hornsby’s subdivision’. It said: ‘Do not allow any subdivision less than two hectares’. As for the Litchfield Shire, if people are against this kind of subdivision, and they make noise and they give me good arguments, I am prepared to do the samethere.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016