Page 5374 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: We talk about Dennis Stevenson. This one is worse.
MR JENSEN: Mr Berry says that this is worse, but this is a very important aspect. As I read the Bill in relation to the definition of "defined land", it says "Upon approval of the subdivisions"; it does not say where that subdivision could be. That subdivision could be in Kingston, for example. You could make an area of defined land in Kingston. It does not necessarily have to be a greenfields suburb, or, if it does, it does not clearly indicate that within the legislation - neither in this legislation nor in the interim planning legislation that we previously approved. Section 25 of the Interim Planning Act says:
Upon approval of the subdivision of a parcel of defined land, the Authority shall, by notice or notices published in the Gazette, vary the Plan to specify the purposes for which that land may be used.
Clause 31 of this legislation says basically the same thing. Maybe Mr Wood can find where I am wrong, but it seems to me that there is no provision within this legislation to require the Planning Authority to declare as defined land only those areas that are related to greenfields subdivisions or development. It could be any subdivision. It could be a subdivision in the middle of Monash, for example, where in fact, as we have seen, what was originally going to be a golf course is now going to be something else. That is a subdivision. It is in the middle of an existing suburb; it is not necessarily a greenfields development.
It is important to get this whole thing in context. Looking at the approved variations to the Gungahlin suburbs of Amaroo, Casey, Harrison, Ngunawal and Nicholls, which were tabled in this Assembly recently after being signed by the Executive on 26 November 1991, I notice that Mr Wood did not actually put the date against his signature. Ms Follett signed hers and put the date against it. I hope that the one date covers both, but - - -
Mr Connolly: But you can be assured that they were genuine signatures.
MR JENSEN: That is an interesting point, but I do not intend to take it any further. I think it would be highly inappropriate. But, if we look at page 1 of the variation to the Territory Plan, we see that what is established is a series of planning principles in relation to boundary hills and internal ridges, a water protection system, the development of suburbs, the town's bicycle and pedestrian system, the road system and subdivision design. They are general planning principles that are applied. In fact, it says, for example:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .