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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 3138 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I want to extend our thanks to the Minister for arranging such briefings, which he often does with his department at very brief notice. I must say that it has always been the practice in this Assembly - both when both Rosemary Follett and Trevor Kaine were Chief Minister, and under the current Government. What the committee was told at this briefing has led it to seek this opportunity to make a statement. The basis of the residents' concern is that land behind their homes is being developed for residential sites, despite the residents' understanding that significant buffer zones, or green space, were to be provided. The Planning and Environment Committee considers that some unfortunate decisions by planning authorities have led to this sort of concern by residents.

Briefly, the background appears to us to be as follows. In 1986 the National Capital Development Commission identified the site as "technology park", "high-technology industry", and "possible future technology park". In October 1991 the draft Territory Plan was released for public comment. It identified that site as "general industrial", or high-tech light industry uses. In November 1992 the ACT Planning Authority gazetted Approved Plan No. 4750, which applied to the area. It permitted residential or technology park development up to three storeys. The land was identified as "defined" land. One of the principles and policies for the development of the land required that "each housing area shall be visually screened from adjacent non-residential uses by landscape treatment". In September 1993 the Territory Plan was gazetted. It showed the area as residential with a B1 area-specific policy to permit three-storey development. It also stated that the area was "defined" land.

The committee understands that, when the Territory Plan was gazetted in September 1993, Approved Plan No. 4750 was not revoked. I think it is important for the Minister, in particular, to understand that that plan was not revoked. This appears to have been an oversight. The effect of not revoking it is that the principles and policies of that approved plan actually coexist with those of the Territory Plan. So, the fact that Plan No. 4750 was not revoked actually adds a complication to this issue. Since 1993, the area has been developed as wholly residential. Since this means that there will be no technology park uses, the proposed landscape buffers to separate residential from non-residential uses are no longer applicable.

The problem is now easily seen: Residents were under the impression that the landscape buffers were a feature of the whole development. Those landscape buffers are primarily in the form of trees, shrubbery and growth. Thus, they have expressed frustration and bewilderment at now being told that the landscape buffers are not required - meaning that residential development is being allowed right up to the backyard fences of the existing residences. The committee is seriously concerned that a situation has been allowed to arise where Canberra ratepayers have been led to believe, even if inadvertently, that green space requirements once insisted upon are found to be no longer required. The committee considers that the Planning and Land Management Group of the Department of Urban Services - the successor to the ACT Planning Authority - should take particular care to ensure that other incidents of this type do not occur.

Lastly, the committee observes that the development affecting Bruce, section 2, once more raised the problem of defined land. The committee's predecessor, the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure, was also keenly aware of the problems that can be caused by the application of the defined land policy.

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