Page 152 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 14 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is a very clear distinction between these objectives. However, this distinction seems to have not been very well understood. The fundamental test of the appropriateness of the proposed provisions of the draft National Capital Plan should therefore be measured against these objectives to determine whether or not they are more appropriately contained in the National Capital Plan or the Territory plan.
As I have indicated previously, the particular element of concern with the plan is that it goes well beyond the objectives of the National Capital Plan as set down in the ACT (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988. It bases much of its case on the Griffin principles for Canberra, as if Griffin's plan extended over the whole metropolitan area. This is extended, for example, to include quite detailed requirements for the planning of the town centres which are a concept of the 1960s and not at all related to the Griffin plan which covered only the central parts of the city.
The plan also espouses an array of principles whose relationship to the national interest are pretty thin. The boundaries of the designated areas are a particular problem. These have been drawn up in a way that could impose severe constraints on the ability of the ACT planners and the ACT Government to make the optimum decisions on behalf of the local citizens.
In the Government's view, designation should occur only where particular criteria are met. These criteria would include national land of national significance, such as the parliamentary zone, and national land sites which are large, permanent and require their own estate planning, such as the Australian Defence Force Academy.
The Territory Government would rightly not have the prime planning responsibilities in these areas. But other areas do not need to be designated. In the areas where there is interest by both governments, the establishment of special requirements formulated by the NCPA after discussion and implemented by the Territory Planning Authority would provide an appropriate means of ensuring balanced planning control. This would apply, for example, in the major avenues.
To complement these special requirements there should be other requirements to cover the situation in which the Commonwealth has an interest in leased Territory land. Most importantly, special conditions should apply to all national land that is not designated, with the requirement that this land be subject to the Territory plan.
The extent of designated land is not the only problem with the draft plan. Another is that it fails to recognise economic realities. The overall impression of the National Capital Plan is of a detailed restatement of National
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .