Page 5571 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, I think we have a potential problem here in terms of a gap between the two taking effect. So, what I did was take the information that is currently identified in the draft Territory Plan and, because it refers to predominant land use zones, residential, et cetera, I have used my definition in schedule 1B, 1.2, which is as follows:
Definitions and locations for areas and spaces are those used in and identified by the National Capital Plan dated December 1990.
All those are identified quite clearly in the plan. Even town, group and local centres are clearly identified. In the draft Territory Plan, the particular schedule within the plan refers to "Commercial 'A'", "Commercial 'B'", or commercial in general. To equate to "Commercial 'A'", I have used the term "town centre"; "Commercial 'B'", I have called "group or local centre". That is because that is how, within the Territory Plan, those two aspects of commercial activity within the ACT are identified.
All other areas, with the possible exception of plantation forestry, are clearly identified and defined, if you like, in the National Capital Plan. We all know that the ACT cannot do anything in its plan that is inconsistent with the National Capital Plan. So, that was the way I got around what I saw to be a potential problem.
In relation to section 3 of the schedule 1B that I have attached, which relates to this clause, all I have done is take from the Territory Plan those sections related to industry proposals. I think it is a straight take, because I think that is what we are proposing. Section 4, of course, is the same situation.
So, that was the best that I believed could be done in the circumstances. It was unfortunate that, because of the time factor, it was not possible for officers of the Law Office and the department - who had, might I say, worked untiringly with me in a short period, because of the pressures of work on each of us - to see whether we could resolve some of these issues. It was unfortunate that we never got down to this part.
At the time it seemed that it would not be possible to get the schedules. But it would seem now that there has been a change, and, in fact, it is likely that the majority of the schedules, if not all, are going to be accepted on the numbers in this Assembly.
So, on that basis, I thought it was important to explain why schedule 1B is proposed the way it is and why we believed that it was important to make that very important change to the planning legislation to ensure that we do not run into the sorts of difficulties that may take place. I will be interested in the comments from Mr Wood on this issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .