ACT's new planning laws causing major disquiet

A planning bill introduced last week partly eliminates the role of the Heritage Council and the Conservator of Flora and Fauna, bypasses the Tree Protection Act, and scraps appeal rights for big projects declared by the Government. It shifts approvals for big projects firmly into the hands of the Government and Assembly, a move planners fear will politicise planning in a way that leaves it open to corruption and abuse.

Many players in the planning field are reluctant to speak on the record, but one source said the new system leaves the Government, as the biggest developer in the territory, effectively consulting with itself.

The planning bill is a fast-track process for major projects. It allows the Government to declare a project of major significance by a simple “disallowable instrument” tabled in the Assembly. It can also declare a “special precinct”. Once a precinct is declared, changes to the Territory Plan like rezoning are tabled at the same time. The public can “inspect and purchase” the plans over 30 days and make comments, but after the consultation and assuming the project is not “disallowed” by the Assembly (where the Government has a majority with the Greens' Shane Rattenbury), the Government can approve the project as it sees fit.

It can declare that the Heritage Act and the Tree Protection Act don't apply in special precinct areas (other than declared historic sites and registered trees, as long as they were declared and registered in advance). This bypasses the Heritage Council and the Conservator and Flora and Fauna, who do not provide advice on development applications in these cases – although the conservator and the council do have to be consulted about the Government's declaration.

Developments in the special precinct can't be appealed to tribunals and courts, other than common law appeals on questions of law or procedure to the Supreme Court – and even then the bill attempts to limit court challenges on significant projects to 60 days.

The bill goes a step further on the planned mental health unit at Symonston, declaring a special precinct for the development but not even making it disallowable by the Assembly. The mental health unit plan looks set to be in place the moment the plan is released. A super-fast-track process is necessary, the Government says, because “the territory has identified an immediate need for a medium/low security mental health facility”.

Mr Corbell acknowledges that the Government already has the power to “call in” and approve big projects, but points out that projects “called in” can still be appealed. And he argues the new process is more transparent because projects will be put before the Assembly and out for public comment.

Mr Corbell said the special-precinct process would take about two months, compared to six to 18 months for standard changes to the Territory Plan, and allow major projects to proceed “with efficiency, certainty and finality”.

The Planning Institute says the changes are not necessary. ACT president Viv Straw questioned restrictions on public consultation for the sake of economic development, and warned against moving planning approvals from the “technical” arena into the political arena.

Separation of the planning powers and approvals from the development processes was a fundamental tenet of checks and balances, he said, avoiding conflicts of interest between developers and politicians.

He said there was little evidence that planning systems slowed down projects, and pointed instead to poor planning, lack of proper environmental assessment and unreliable agency advice.

ACT Heritage Council chairman Duncan Marshall said the council was being briefed next week, and in the meantime was “a bit in limbo”, waiting to see how the Government intended to get heritage advice on projects.

“There is always a concern that issues like heritage will be easier to deal with if you just turn them all off and you don't have to think about them, and I would be deeply worried if that was the eventual outcome,” he said.

“I'm hopeful that heritage is being considered with all of these proposals and won't simply be lost in this desire to streamline and achieve fast tracking of projects.”

Chief scientist at the University of Canberra's Institute for Applied Ecology Professor Arthur Georges said that at a time when the Commonwealth was devolving responsibility to the states and territories for conservation, “special attention needs to be paid to any changes to planning legislation that remove scrutiny of proposals”.

Liberal planning spokesman Alistair Coe said he was “cautious and sceptical” about giving Labor more control, and concerned the legislation would be used to fast-track poorly thought-out proposals such as light rail.