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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4330 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

We believe that there is a need for clear guidelines about the nature of section master plans and about the right of residents to be consulted. There is a need for section master plans to permit the retention of existing amenity for those residents who wish to remain in their existing homes in an area subject to developmental pressure. In other words, the section master plans ought not to be just development plans; they should be development and conservation plans, so that they respect those who wish to develop and they respect the rights of those who wish to conserve as well. I think that is a very important point.

I was very interested in a particular developer who appeared before the committee, who said that he believed that a section development ought not to proceed until everybody within the section was prepared to allow it to go ahead. In fact, I was so surprised that I actually asked him the question a second time to verify that that was what he thought. In the end, I do not think many people will agree that we need to take as hard a line as that. However, it is important to recognise the rights of those people. This was somebody who actually wished to develop large parts of a section of Braddon.

There is a need to clarify the manner in which section master plans, once they are established, are to be varied. In fact, the committee considers that the section master plans could be such useful documents and such useful devices that they may well become part of the Territory Plan. We would probably need a process akin to varying the Territory Plan in order to change a section master plan once it was established - perhaps not quite as stringent as that, but certainly along the same lines.

We also believe that it is appropriate to set section master plans on a firm legislative footing, most likely by introducing the appropriate legislative amendments at the same time as a new draft variation is submitted. In that way, we can see that they are appropriately established. The committee believes that it was also right that section master plans not be the responsibility of the developer, but rather the responsibility of PALM - an independent player - whose role it is to assist in the development of these section master plans. We see that as the appropriate role for a planner. We made comments about staging multidwelling development and precinct plans and some comments about the urban housing code. Mr Speaker, what we sought to do was find an appropriate balance between preserving an existing amenity and facilitating redevelopment where it is needed.

I have a personal comment as well, Mr Speaker. I think a significant pressure has been removed from this type of development. It is appropriate that we keep a balance within the suburbs where the pressures have been removed, for two reasons: Firstly, because of the general downturn in housing in Canberra anyway; and, secondly, because of the increased amount of high-density residential development in Civic itself. Because residential development is now occurring in Civic, I believe that that will meet the needs of many people who are looking for inner-city residential development of a high density. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I think it was appropriate for the committee to say that it is time to take a breather on this; it is time for us to go through the process, which the committee will have gone through itself, and allow PALM to do that, so that at the beginning of the next Assembly the successor of this committee is ready to deal with this issue in the most effective way it can.

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