Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

I thank the Senator. On the mapping piece and the need for skills and resources to do that, ultimately we will end up with one map. We have one development plan in any county, and we will switch on and off depending on how we need to describe the land and the purpose and type of information one needs on a particular site. Ultimately, we will all work towards having a development plan presented in this way.

It is fair to say that we have all come through the development plan process quite recently. I do not know of any requests for dezoning in that process, so until both the RZLT and the land value sharing is embedded in the system, the question of dezoning is unknown. We do not know what the impact will be. However, when it comes to the development plan process, it is certainly not an issue yet, and we will probably have to work through the system into the next development plan to understand what the impact would be. However, we do not want land dezoned which is in the right location for development, so that is a dilemma we are going to have to work through in the planning process. We are well used to that, and ultimately, the purpose of the taxes from the land value sharing is to activate land where the landowner might be reluctant to do that.

On the resourcing piece, when the Act is enacted, that is the first thing which the CCMA will go about doing. Typically, that is our approach, to understand what the resources should be. That establishment phase of any new legislation is critical and resource-heavy. Ultimately, we would be looking with a longer outlook to see what we need to establish to run the system. However, getting the baseline right is critical, so there will be a combination of employing staff directly to do that, and if we need to buy in systems, we would look at that as well. We are fairly well along the introduction of e-planning, so we are getting more IT proficient and better systems are coming in place. Yet, resourcing will still be a problem, so I do not want to walk out of the room without saying that. That is why we have it in our clarification, to make that point well.

Regarding the five-year term, I do not think a shorter period would be appropriate insofar as, at the end of the day, development plan making and the implementation of a development plan takes time. A five-year review is appropriate. A lesser review time would not have any benefit, or add value to the system. That would be my perspective, but I might ask the city planner to come in on that.