Page 148 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 14 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Rally party press release in which it states that certain vested property interests seek to destroy the concept of the plan in order to have a freer hand with development applications. That is not our motivation at all. Our response seeks to clarify the demarcation between the National Capital Planning Authority and the TPA. We believe that there is no need for competition and rivalry between the two authorities, but it is certainly in the best interests of both national and local concerns that the respective roles be clear from the outset.
We would be seeking to intrude into the reconsideration of the National Capital Plan a role for the territorial government. If you look at some of the statements which have been made - in fact if you look at this document - there is virtually no reference to the Territory Planning Authority or to territorial government. It has been omitted altogether. If you look at some of the articles that have been contributed by some of the supporters of the National Capital Planning Authority in the newspaper, you will find that similar pattern - a total ignoring of the role of the Territory Planning Authority and the ACT Government.
We believe that the NCPA should have the total planning responsibility - and that is the level of planning responsibility that it would have in relation to designated land - for only a small area, and that would be the area of the Parliamentary Triangle, as defined by Parkes Way on the western boundary, and a very small number of designated areas beyond that. Those designated areas would include, for example, Anzac Parade and the Australian War Memorial.
In all other parts of the ACT planning would be the responsibility of the Territory Planning Authority, subject to special requirements agreed to between the two agencies. This is an important aspect of our position. If you look at section 10 of the Act, which provides for the various classifications of influence, we do not believe that special requirements should be merely imposed by the Commonwealth or the National Capital Planning Authority. We believe that any special requirements should be the subject of negotiation, discussion and consultation. Only then should they be imposed, and on an agreed basis. They should be the subject of negotiation. In particular, we believe that the TPA should have the prime responsibility for planning decisions in relation to all leasehold land in the ACT, so that all leasehold land of any nature will be the planning responsibility of the Territory Planning Authority.
The implications of some of our positions, particularly the implication of our position in relation to the Parkes Way proposal, change the relationship with Civic and the imposition of the National Capital Planning Authority on Civic. Under the NCPA proposal there would be two effects on Civic. A substantial part - an important part - of Civic would be designated land. That falls into two
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .