Page 5372 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (12.42): When the proposals for the Bill first emerged, and when there was discussion in the days of the first Follett Government, consideration was being given to how to deal with broad-acre development. Options were presented suggesting that we could be entirely prescriptive or that it may be useful to go down the path of allowing a little more flexibility. I forget the precise words that were used. Then, when the Bill was prepared and further developed under the Alliance Government, the particular clauses that we now see were written in.
The Residents Rally at that time apparently - clearly - agreed with the defined land clauses being included. It was never, to my knowledge, part of the many arguments between the Liberals and the Rally within the Alliance. Now we see a change of direction. We see the rhetoric emerging that the defined land concept will allow open slather for developers to do as they wish in broad-acre development - and, let us be clear, this defined land concept relates only to broad-acre land development. Of course, it is only rhetoric; it is simply not the case. As in everything to do with planning within the ACT - the Acts, the requirements, the administrative arrangements - everything is very prescriptive.
The defined land concept works well within the requirements in this legislation that policies and conditions be laid down quite clearly beforehand. As part of that, the recent draft variations for Gungahlin specified how it should be developed and allowed ample scope for the community to comment. And, indeed, people are commenting on it. I am getting no small amount of comment, and maybe other parties in this Assembly are too.
The principles, the policies and the guidelines are laid down; have a look at those variations that went out. This proposal of defined land will allow some flexibility. It will allow, for example, the person developing the broad acres to make changes without having to go through the rather exhaustive draft variation procedure. If that person finds that it is better to take a street alignment in a particular way, then that can be done. If it is found on the site that putting an intersection at a particular hilltop or slight rise creates a difficulty that was not foreseen when it was prepared on paper, then that can be changed. It allows a sensible variation to what is happening.
In the end, once the developer prepares his or her plans, they, in any case, come back to the Planning Authority and, of course, the Minister can be well and truly involved in that. I am sure that every planning Minister of this Assembly - whoever follows in this position over the years - will take a most active interest in the very important aspect of developing new areas. There is nothing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .