•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The introduction of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld) (‘IPA’) saw planning law in Queensland implement extensive reform measures. The catch‐cry for IPA was ‘integration’. IPA looked to provide a completely integrated development assessment system (‘IDAS’). This system sought to combat the inefficiencies experienced under the previous Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 (Qld).1 Town Planning legislation in Queensland had its roots in the 1930s and until IPA the fundamental nature of the legislation had remained virtually unchanged. In its second reading speech to Parliament on 30 October 19972 Hon. D.E. McCauley touted IPA as ‘state‐of‐the‐art planning legislation’3 born from an increasing demand by the community to ‘…deliver more liveable communities and a better quality of life.’4 The time had arrived for change. This paper proposes to analyse critically IPA’s strengths and weaknesses in securing the following purposes ‐ &#; Accountable, efficient and co‐ordinated decision‐making processes; &#; Lessening or avoiding adverse environmental effects of development; and &#; Community involvement opportunities within the decision‐making process.

Share

COinS