Page 40 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think it is appropriate that I draw to the attention of the Assembly the fact that there is no statutory obligation on the Chief Territory Planner to provide these guidelines to the committee for this type of exercise. I regard it as a test of the relationship between the statutory office of the Territory Planner and the Minister's office that they have readily and cooperatively agreed to having these matters tested by our committee in public hearing in the manner that I have outlined.
MS SZUTY: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement on the same matter.
Leave granted.
MS SZUTY: Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee has announced, the committee will be inquiring into the development of guidelines for three areas of significance in Canberra - firstly, area B1, which takes in Turner, Lyneham, Braddon and Dickson, predominantly along Northbourne Avenue; secondly, area B2, which addresses Kingston and Griffith; and, thirdly, the historic areas of Forrest, Red Hill, Deakin and Griffith.
Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that one of the objectives of the new Territory Plan was to introduce greater certainty and consistency, to enable proposed developments to be handled more easily. However, it is also worth noting that many specific areas of our city have their own additional objectives and development controls which will guide development on those sites. The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee recommended in its report on the Territory Plan:
... the guidelines bearing on the final Territory Plan, and any further guidelines developed in the future, be disallowable instruments pursuant to the Subordinate Laws Act 1989.
It was pleasing for our committee to be approached by the ACT Planning Authority for our suggestions as to how consultation on the proposed guidelines for the three areas that I have mentioned might proceed. Mr Lamont addressed that matter in his remarks. Our suggestions were adopted by the ACT Planning Authority towards the end of last year, and considerable community comment has been generated. The Institute of Valuers and Land Economists; the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, ACT Chapter; the Royal Australian Planning Institute, ACT Division; the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, ACT Group; the National Trust; the Heritage Council; the Housing Industry Association, ACT Division; and the Master Builders Association have responded to all three guidelines; and a number of individuals have responded to each, with most interest being generated in the guidelines for the historic areas and for Northbourne Avenue. The draft guidelines have now been revised by the ACT Planning Authority, and the Planning Committee is holding a public hearing, as Mr Lamont has said, on all three guidelines on 4 March to hear views and objections.
I have spent some time commenting on what is occurring, Madam Speaker, because I believe that the process that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee has adopted for consideration of the proposed guidelines is a good one. Members have spoken often of the need to enable groups and individuals to have their say on planning matters, and this will be further facilitated during the Planning Committee's inquiry process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .