Page 3096 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In my response to the Todd report, I wish to comment specifically on the plan variation timeframe, the lease variation process, the consultation process, the recommendations in particular, and what we need to do for the future as a result of this report. Firstly, let me turn to the consideration of the plan variation timeframe. Mr Todd accurately outlines the process as it was followed exactly according to the Land (Planning and Environment) Act. It was not until I actually read these paragraphs - 28, 29 and 30 - of the report that I realised that the absolute minimum timeframe for consideration of this variation had been adhered to. This was a contentious draft variation to the Territory Plan, yet it was formally dealt with in less than three months. I believe, in hindsight, that this was regrettable and that both the ACT Planning Authority and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee of the Assembly could have taken more time to carefully examine the issues.
Secondly, I wish to discuss the lease variation process. Mr Todd seemingly refers to the Land (Planning and Environment) Act provisions about the lease variation process as gobbledegook of the first order. While the provisions of the Act might be effective for the purpose, they are certainly difficult to understand, and it is something the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee of this Assembly will turn its attention to in the context of its current inquiry into the ACT's planning legislation. There is an inference in Mr Todd's report that the legislation needs to be in plain English that it needs to be user friendly, and not written just for the legislators and planners but for the end users, the community.
It is noteworthy that statutory processes with regard to the lease variation were not followed because notification letters were not posted but hand delivered. It would have been interesting if the objectors had proceeded with an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the appeal upheld because of this, albeit technical, breach of the Act. The Minister stated in his tabling statement that the effect of the law had been carried out, if not the letter of the law. Perhaps that is not the point, and it needs to be remembered that, with regard to a sensitive development proposal, statutory processes were not followed.
Thirdly, Mr Todd says much about consultation processes - what they are and what they are not. The point is made that adherence to minimum timeframes and other statutory requirements is not a substitute for meaningful consultation, which for a so-called model medium density urban renewal development might have been exceedingly beneficial. I cannot support strongly enough the sentiments expressed by Mr Todd at paragraph 50:
The real point however is that in my opinion statutory notice requirements do not ... fulfil the role of consultation at all. They are a backstop, a fail-safe mechanism which responds in effect to a variant of the concept of natural justice.
Unfortunately, the current Government has a tendency to view all objectors to medium density development proposals as NIMBYs - or not in my backyard. I have always believed that this view is unworthy of them. It can be seen that the objectors in the case of section 22, Braddon, had legitimate concerns and were concerned with wider planning questions than just those that may apply to a particular section in Braddon. I would hardly call the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra, the Turner Residents Association and Mr Ed Wensing, among others, NIMBYs, and more heed should have been paid to their concerns.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .