Page 1652 - Week 06 - Thursday, 20 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As to industrial land use policies, when we dealt specifically with Fyshwick, the committee recommended that the area currently known as the Goldenholm Dairy continue to operate, because of its significance as part of the river corridor of the Molonglo River, and that the land use there be rigorously enforced as it is. It is expected that the current interim area which butts into the corridor will be removed, and the Government should take action to do that as a matter of urgency. We made the same observation in relation to the land use policies as far as West Belconnen minor industrial area is concerned.
In the time remaining to me, I will deal specifically with those areas that were proposed to be excluded from public land. In part C, the committee has made a very detailed review of those proposals. I must place on the public record that, while we have not agreed with a substantial number of those areas proposed for exclusion from public land, the community in the ACT must be ever mindful that decisions such as this have a direct cost implication to us as a community. I would suggest that they have a significant cost implication. However, it is the view of the committee that that is the genuine desire of the community. In C1, Overlay Provisions, we have removed substantially such areas, and I will go through them briefly. In Belconnen, the only area we have agreed for removal from public land is the area known as the peninsula, but we have proposed quite specific land use policies for that. Any land use policy variation, however, would require consideration by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee. So the area to the west of Lake Ginninderra has been returned to public land. In relation to Evatt, two areas have been retained as public land; on page 286, the Gaslight Estate has been reincluded.
Between pages 283 and 317 of the attachment to our report - and it is important to refer to this because it is one of the areas where there was substantial community concern - we have laid out quite clearly what we believe is an acceptable form of determination of exclusions from public land. Probably the most significant is the area called Latham District Park. The committee has unanimously endorsed that the whole of Latham District Park, with the exception of the area identified in the original document as near Southern Cross Drive, be retained as public land.
There are a range of other issues in relation to design and siting matters. We have streamlined the process to allow for a development envelope to be determined for each block of land in the ACT. If development is done within that development envelope, there is no third party appeal. If a proponent proposes to go outside that development envelope, there is automatic third party appeal. We have maintained the proposals for development guidelines to be absolute maximums, and they are retained also within this process. In doing that, we have proposed that there be a non-legalistic, non-expensive way for third party appeals to operate in the ACT. Again, it was the unanimous view of the committee that the appeals process has become overly legalistic and works against both the proponents and the appellants. I believe that the recommendation of the committee is the only sensible way to proceed.
We also propose that energy efficiency guidelines be required, with an absolute requirement of four-star rating to be achieved by 1 July 1995. We have asked the Government to look at that extremely carefully and to implement it only after consultation with all players, including all those people in the industry who wish to be involved.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .