Page 4224 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The principle that overrides everything in this draft plan is the zoning system. In a strategic planning system the interests of the community are paramount. The appeals take into account the strategy. One of the problems that we have had is that appeals have not been cheap, accessible and fast. Those are critical factors if a genuine and logical appeal system is going to be able to be run. That is a problem that has to be dealt with by this legislation, and I believe that we still are not going to be able to satisfy that. Let us lose this term "predominant land use zone". Quite simply, it is zoning. There is no debate, no question, about that: It is simply a zoning system with an extra few letters added to it.
It is quite clear, Mr Speaker, that in relation to the 400 pages of this plan that I have read through so thoroughly I may need a response from the Minister to point out that in some of the areas my reading has not been detailed or specific enough. Therefore, I would be delighted if in his response to my comments he can point out where I have gone wrong.
The zoning system as far as residential land use goes is nicely set out at page 63. Land uses which may be permitted if you live in any current residential area are: Apartment, attached house, child-care centre, detached house, guesthouse, health facility, home occupation, park, residential boarding house, retirement complex, social community facility, special care establishment, special care hostel and special dwelling - and they are all carefully defined.
It means that, if somebody applies to have one of those land uses, which I identified from page 63, for the property next door to you, there will be no question that they will be able to go ahead with it. It is my understanding from a fast reading and from a briefing on Tuesday that, if there is an intention of having more than one dwelling as part of this application, an appeal will be possible. But what chance would the appeal have when it is allowed in the plan? It would have no chance whatsoever of succeeding. Quite clearly, there would be an increase there.
Why would we have this zoning system? We already have a planning control system, a leasehold system. Who would it suit? It would suit the bureaucrats. We would have another level of bureaucracy in order to run this zoning system. The whole concept of running a zoning system on top of our current controls is absolutely useless, with the exception of the interest of those who want to continue to develop because it gives them this certainty - I will use residential as an example, and it is only an example - that, if you want to develop anywhere, in this zone you can do it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .