Page 4800 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On examining clauses 4, 5 and 11 of the Bill, the Government notes that it seeks to remove the flexibility and adaptability of the Territory Plan in relation to defined land - that is, land defined in the plan as land leased for broad-acre development purposes. A number of observations should be made about this proposal.
Defined land, first of all, relates to undeveloped land; members should understand that. The land use for that land is resolved through the ordinary planning process. The declaration of an area as defined land is also a planning process. The processes include the usual public consultation, an environmental impact study and so on. The advantage of the existing process is to allow the detailed design to occur with the plan and the policies and principles established for the area. For instance, in the past a minor change to the subdivision pattern has required a full plan variation process in new urban areas. This has militated against more efficient and energy conscious design because of the likely delays in design change.
Under the current and proposed process the land can be detailed or can relate to the particular, to ensure environmental protection, infrastructure efficiency or any other specific concern. These plans, policies and principles are subject to full public consultation, acceptance by the Government and review by the Assembly. Mr Jensen simply wants to remove any flexibility there at all, and I do not think that this and his other proposals can be accepted - save one. It does really reflect the inordinate suspicion that the Residents Rally has about the usual processes that apply in the ACT.
It is not really possible to expect land development to proceed in any efficient and cost-effective manner if the rules require another full public consultation process when the detailed subdivision is in place or each time any amendments are proposed to the subdivision plan. Do not forget that the development has to comply with not only the land use policy and the area's planning principles and policies but also the Territory's guidelines and standards. These proposals are simply unrealistic. The policies as defined by the plan will be detailed, they will be comprehensive and they will accommodate the views and the impressions that the community wants. Bear that in mind. It is not, as Mr Jensen would seem to believe, that we give open slather to developers to do as they wish. That is simply not the case.
Mr Jensen also proposes, through clauses 7 and 8, that the draft plan should have an additional step in the process. He proposes that the Executive should give a copy of a draft plan, together with background papers and reports, to the Assembly, and have regard to any recommendation of an Assembly committee before approving the plan or giving a direction to the Planning Authority. I do not know why he raises this now. In the 18 months that he was the Executive Deputy in the Alliance Government, that did not happen.
Mr Jensen: That is not so. I raised it many times.
MR WOOD: Well, it did not happen under the Alliance Government, Mr Jensen, and that was, in my view, one of the sensible proposals, one of the machinery or operational matters that I would support that the Alliance Government did. There are simply so many processes in the steps that Mr Jensen wants that things would come to a complete halt.
Another matter not raised here but which he will seek to do in the legislation also in front of us is to establish a planning advisory committee. Once again we are getting steps put in the way that will simply stop everything. It will take forever for anything ever to happen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .