Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1105 ..

Let me talk about local area planning advisory committees. A key element of the Government's election commitments is the formation of local area planning advisory committees, or LAPACs. Community consultation on the evolution of the Territory Plan has been piecemeal and, in the eyes of many, largely unsatisfactory. Consultation about the broader land uses allowed in that plan was important but in some cases lacked any context. Conversely, community reaction to particular development proposals has often occurred against a background of being unable to change the environment in which such development was allowed. In his review of planning guidelines last year, Robert Lansdown said:

A primary problem that the Review observed was that the one overall and flexible land use policy and one design and siting code has resulted in new small scale infill and dual occupancies which, while acceptable in one area, is not acceptable in another.

... ... ...

The preferred option to meet the detailed requirement is a recommendation that the Planning Authority specifically identify urban areas with different residential characteristics and different levels of visual and physical amenity, and introduce more development (non-statutory) guidelines and timeframes which are area specific and appropriate to each locality.

This Government believes that, generally, local residents are responsible enough to be entrusted with a continuing role in the shape and direction of their neighbourhoods. Admittedly, such a role may bring the broader community interest and narrow self-interest into sharp conflict on occasions. This Government recognises the need for a balanced approach to local area planning - one which gives the green light to a local, consultative approach, while giving the red light to delays and uncertainty. Above all, we recognise that the needs of local communities in respect of planning their neighbourhoods are different. Planning priorities in newer suburbs such as Banks or Ngunnawal are obviously different to the planning needs of older established areas such as Red Hill. And the many suburbs within the age scale all have different dynamics that a concept like local area planning can identify.

The Government proposes the initial establishment on a trial basis of three local area planning advisory committees in North Canberra. The first will be centred on the areas of Lyneham, North Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner; the second will consist of Watson, Downer, Hackett and Dickson; while the third will take in Ainslie, Braddon, Reid and Campbell. Membership of the committees needs to be as broadly representative of the community as possible if they are to work effectively. I propose that there will be a representation of two people per suburb in each area. In the case of a suburb which has a suburban residents association already, that association will be asked to nominate one of the two members. In addition to the eight suburban representatives, there will be two representatives of the local business community and one representative of the district community council. As Minister, I will retain the option of appointing to a LAPAC up to four individuals to represent the interests of groups in the area such as senior citizens,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .