Page 1716 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Following inquiries, the Minister has advised me that the legislation will not apply retrospectively; it will apply only to new applications for approval of an unapproved building. Any building constructed in accordance with previous design and siting policies is protected by conventions that apply in the application of later legislation. Naturally, for approval to be granted, the structure would need to conform to design and siting law. It is a tidying up move, Madam Speaker, in the design and siting process and, as such, is to be supported. On the face of it, I could even commend the Government for the amendment, but I will withhold that accolade until I see how it works out.
I add this qualification because certain recent amendments to planning legislation have not produced the effects sought by the community. It has been claimed, for example, that developers need certainty. I think it is fair to say that the same could be said for the community, yet it is not getting it - at least in its own estimation. This is not surprising, given the unintelligible labyrinth ordinary people must negotiate first to understand the Territory Plan itself. I think this example would not go amiss:
"Private open space" means an outdoor area within a block useable for outdoor living activities - and "private open space" is to comprise a minimum 35 per cent of the block area (see the Design and Siting Code for Multi-Dwelling Developments in the ACT, Appendix III.2 of the Territory Plan, page 16 of the Appendix).
Frankly, Madam Speaker, I was not prepared to put my staff on overtime to check out the reference.
Mr Kaine: That is simple. It is just an appendix to the Territory Plan.
MR CORNWELL: Indeed; but I found, Mr Kaine, in looking through it, that there are so many papers there. I am talking about the average person in the street. I think the problem is that the very obscurity about planning issues worries people. They believe that nothing is simple and, when that is the case, suspicions are aroused that people are being, or have been, conned. This is not a desirable situation; yet I believe that it is an accurate summation of the circumstances in which individuals and groups of local residents throughout Canberra currently find themselves - faced with developments or proposed developments in their immediate neighbourhood over which they find or believe they have no control.
The best example, I think, of this impotence felt by the community is when threatened by activities that impinge upon the most expensive investment most of them will ever make in their lives, and that, of course, is their home. They find, for instance, that the plan permits multidwelling development on any residential land, subject to design and siting requirements being met. End of story. If these requirements are met there is no direct, far less automatic, opportunity to seek reconsideration. I believe that this is an unsatisfactory, even undemocratic, situation, and I look forward to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee's examination of the new guidelines for residential development to be prepared by the ACT Planning Authority. I am pleased to see that the Minister has confirmed that these new guidelines will be a priority exercise. Mr Wood may care to comment, when he closes this debate, on just how advanced these new guidelines might be at this point.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .