Page 1658 - Week 06 - Thursday, 20 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
design rather than the exception. The need for further consultation to enable a smooth transition to meet this requirement is recognised. However, the goal is clear and the expectation for improvement unequivocal.
The ACT Planning Authority referred to a considerable number of guidelines - over 20 - in the draft Territory Plan. The committee has determined that both these guidelines and those yet to be developed will be disallowable instruments pursuant to the Subordinate Laws Act 1989. The community will thus have clear expectations arising from the Territory Plan and the guidelines, creating certainty and trust in the planning process. The committee has also drawn attention to the lack of coordinated publications on the Government's policies on urban renewal and suggested that the Government prepare a substantive paper on the subject. I believe that the advantages and benefits of urban renewal strategies are yet to be justified and will need continuing review.
It is no surprise that the committee has recommended an alternative process for consideration of design and siting issues, enabling objectors to developments easier access to appeals processes, in a format similar to the earlier established Design and Siting Review Committee. This process will enable the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee to continue to determine draft variations, but will facilitate resolution of design and siting issues at a much earlier stage.
The committee has spent some considerable time examining the draft Territory Plan in terms of its presentation and has recommended a number of changes which will enable the plan to be much more user friendly. The inclusion of site-specific maps, additional sketches and diagrams in the design and siting codes, revised Territory Plan maps, and the clear delineation of performance measures for land use policies in italics will assist in the readability of the document. The committee is also conscious of the need to prepare necessary amendments to the Land (Planning and Environment) Act to complement the work done on the Territory Plan and to ensure a smooth transition for the effective operation of the plan.
In conclusion, I wish to remind members of this Assembly, community members and planners that, although it looks today as if we are finalising our deliberations on the Territory Plan, this is not the end and considerable work remains to be done. We need to remember that the reason for Canberra's existence is the national capital, and we need to ensure that a cooperative relationship exists between the National Capital Planning Authority and the ACT Planning Authority. We have built a magnificent capital city which is the envy of other Australians and a source of continuing pride to our own citizens. We must preserve our city's best features and build on our strengths as the natural and national bush capital.
Finally, I wish to thank the committee's presiding member, Mr David Lamont, for his handling of the committee's consideration of the Territory Plan, for the initiative he has demonstrated, and for his willingness to work towards an outcome that has the support of all committee members. I would also like to thank Mr Rod Power, the committee secretary, for the contribution he has made to the efficient and effective operation of the committee, enabling us to complete our task according to the very tough timetable we set for ourselves last December.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .