Page 5409 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think it is particularly important that we concentrate on the area where it is proposed that the concept of defined land be used in the Territory Plan, an area on which most people comment. That will put the matter in the appropriate perspective. I refer to greenfields development. It seems to me that, if a developer can vary the way roads run or where intersections go in relation to hilltops and so forth, it may have a major implication for the environment. By allowing defined land, we are excluding the possibility of citizens raising such issues as the environmental impact of the placement of roads.
One of the most significant factors in new areas is the siting of houses. Siting houses so that they take maximum advantage of the sun will allow us, of course, to preserve our energy resources and will have a major impact on how much we pollute our planet and deplete the ozone layer. This is very closely tied in with our energy resources.
In removing the ability for people to appeal and to comment, we are adding to the continuing problems about open government. If the draft Territory Plan becomes our plan, we will have no long-term strategy for the development of Canberra upon which to test these ideas. I think that is a very important overriding principle that we will have to look at again before we leave this Bill.
MR COLLAERY (4.11): The Rally's view - a view shared by others in the chamber, we hope - is that defined land should be subject to public consultation to a greater extent. Is the concept of defined land consistent with the National Capital Plan and the legislation underpinning it? I give you an example. The National Capital Plan says that local centres shall be developed to satisfy the community's need for convenient shopping and local commercial and community facilities.
Yet there will be no consultation within a defined envelope - as far as we can determine - on the location and layout, for example, of the Gungahlin town centre, if it ever proceeds. We are aware that a consultancy has just been issued to Ray L. Davis and Co., in the sum of $15,000, to look into the marketing of that centre. No-one in the Rally has yet seen the town layout for Gungahlin. We have been up to a ridge with the Conservation Council and looked at the trees, but we have not seen the layout. So, to what extent is this defined land concept consistent with the national capital planning imperatives? We believe that the Minister should respond to that, because we have views about it. We also have views about some other possible conflicts with the National Capital Plan stemming from the Territory Plan, but we will debate them later.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .