Legislation is considered one of many W1 government regulations for any development process. Indeed, the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and the Planning Act 2016 (PA) are considered necessary legislation for development assessment for any development process in Queensland. These two legislations were used in two previous exercises: scenarios and planning codes. The two exerW2 cises made it very clear both how these legislations work and what the differences are between them. HoweW3 ver, during the past few years, the SPA and PA have been subjected to several changes. In this essay, proposed changes and implementation challenges will be reviewed with regard to development assessment rules in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and the Planning Act 2016. First, W4 the fundamental differences of the development assessment rules in SPA will be reviewed, followed by a review of the rules in PA.
In general, the Planning Act 2016 does not significantly alter the process for changing development applications and approvals. However, notably, there are some changes in the planning process. SomW5 e are minor changes, and some are essential changes. In PA 2016, the development assessment process has been removed. ThiW6 s is an appropriate step that provides further flexibility that allows for responding quickly to changes and developments in the development process. The change was achieved by separating the Development Assessment Rules (DA Rules) from the PA itself. Additional changes worth noting relate to the submission of applications. W7 First, assessment managers in PA 2016 have shorter assessment timeframes. But there is a challenge in discounting the timeframe allotted for asking for information that affects decision-making because it may affect W8 the timeframes of other steps. Indeed, there are specific timeframes for all procedures which can be extended by agreement between the applicant and the evaluation manager. However, this action makes the assessment manager face a challenge if the applicant does not consent to the W9 extension. Regarding the request for information, it is possible for the applicant to withdraw from requesting information, which is usefulW10 . But there is a bit of a gamW11 ble in doing so because the applicant cannot reverse the decision to withdraw from the request for information. Also among the changes taking place is that the applicant may suspend the assessment working hours at any stage of the assessment except for the public notice stage. Thus, this may be useful if theW12 applicant requires the request for information. In regard to the change in approvals, there is a slight chW13 ange allowed in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, but the change depends heavily on the same assessment process. The other changW14 e is a new process of cW15 hange in PA 2016, but the potential challenge to this shift would occur in the event of an objection on the basis of changW16 e. Finally, the proposed changes of PA 2016 reduced the time and effort in the assessment process. There are also challenges in some evaluation steps that need to be reconsidered to cope with developments in the process of development assessment.
Before a review of the proposed changes and any implementation challenges in SPA 2009, it must be recalled that the development assessments are assessed in accordance with the Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Indeed, as is the case in PA 2016, there are some changes and challenges to implementing development assessments rules. Basically, there are changes with respect to changing development applications: An applicant W17 might can change the application any time before taking a decision, which is a remarkable change W18 in anthe application process. But this is not always helpful if the results of the changed application are not properly made or include prohibited development. In addition, there is an important minor change which allows changing the application without reprocessing the IDAS. Indeed, this process is important because it changes the strict situation which requires a re-operation of IDAS when any change occurs concerning the request for information or when the details relating to the owner or applicant are changeW19 d. Time factor is verW20 y important, so it is essential to reduce the timeframe throughout the development assessment process. In fact, reducing the delays in the development assessment process is necessary to reduce the waiting period for applicants. But the challenge is when something goes wrong outside of human will which may cause losses to all parties or to one of them. Regarding the forms, it is known that the applicant must complete 33 IDAS forms, whicW21 h is considered too many. However, the proposed change is to reduce the number of IDAS forms from 33 to two W22 or three specific forms. In this matter, it is an ideal solution to facilitate the applicant. The challenge, though, is not to consider this solution as uniform because each applicant may need some additional formulations when required. Regarding the development assessment process, it is known that it contains a number of concrete steps that must be taken before moving on to other stages. IntegrW23 ating some steps into one phase, reducing the number of steps, and then moving to the decision-making process provides more flexibility in the format and structure of the development assessment process, making it more usable, navigable, anW24 d straightforward.
The process of development and modernization of SPA 2009 and PA 2016 was and is still controversial in terms of changes to the content. Therefore, the continuous development of both legislations must involve fundamental change in the interest oW25 f continuous development. OW26 verall, the changes aimed to streamline performance for applicants and assessment managers. Most of the steps in the development process can be further developed in isolation from each other. However, there are some proposals in both legislations language. First, if there are some similarities in the legislations, then duplication of similar steps can be avoided through consolidation. Second, merging the two legislations into a single electronic file would be W27 ideal. This would make it easy to find the appropriate information in both legislations. Having a single electronic file would also provide a suitable process for comparing the two legislations by clicking one buttonW28 . Third, it is also best to propose that the language used in the legislation be accessible to everyone and not just professionals. The reason for this is so that applicants will be familiar with the language used, which would reduce the effort required by the assessment manager in the process of explaining some contents W29 of the legislation to applicants. Finally, it is best to rely on only one reference, so combining the two legislations to unify procedures would save time, effort, and money for both applicants and service providers.
In conclusion, although these W30 two protocols are complementary, other legislation—such as sustainable planning regulations, planning regulations, or planning schemes—is sometimes neW31 eded. Indeed, this is normal in different placesW32 of development and the need for implementation according to the rules and laws available only. However, SPA 2009 and PA 2016 are the result of an ongoing effort spanning many years. What has been mentioned above is merely a statement and proposals that may be commensurate with only one of the legislations or both. Of course, some legislation may change according to the public interest and the concerned authorities response in this regard. W33 Overall, this essay explained the proposed changes and any implementation challenges that might arise in development assessment rules. The point of view was clarified with the inclusion of some proposals that might be appropriate to the current status of both legislations. Most of the changes were limited to speeding up procedures, shortening time, and adding more flexibility for applicants. Finally, some changes W34 may appear in the new version of SPA, which is expected to be published soon and should align with W35 the latest release of PA 2016. This essay was based on what was studied during the intensive week of the planning legislation course. Indeed, the analysis draws heavily on the contents of the course and the explanation given by the lecturer about what the future holds for both legislations.W36