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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1908 ..

Mr Moore: Did she consult with you?

MR CORBELL: What I can say, Mr Moore, is that Ms Tucker extended an invitation for me to discuss the matter with one of her staff, and I have done so. The Labor Opposition is conscious of the concerns raised by Ms Tucker about the need for coordinated planning, wherever that may be in Canberra, and for planning to take place in an orderly way. Mr Speaker, we share those concerns. That is one of the reasons why the Labor Party has supported the development of section master plans for the B11 and B12 areas in the inner north. We have also supported provisions for strategic planning and for master planning in areas such as Civic, an issue which the Government has yet to address to the full extent required.

I have looked at the motion Ms Tucker is proposing today, and I agree with her that the Government should be preparing precinct master plans for local shopping centres which identify the preferred pattern of any new development. But I do not accept her proposal. The Labor Party does not accept her proposal that this should be a requirement before approval is given for any redevelopment of part or all of these shopping centres as allowed in Territory Plan variation No. 64.

I will give some very good reasons for that. One reason is that this Assembly has gone through a very extensive inquiry process already in relation to the redevelopment of local shopping centres. Variation No. 64 was an issue of considerable debate and examination by the former Planning and Environment Committee of this Assembly. That committee's successor, the Standing Committee on Urban Services, of which I am a ember, currently has a standing brief to examine the way in which variation No. 64 is implemented. It has self-referred the issue and continues to receive briefings from the Minister for Urban Services on the implementation of variation No. 64 and is also continuing to receive comments from local communities and developers affected by proposals for redevelopment of local shopping centres.

If Ms Tucker believes that this issue should be part of issues to do with the implementation of variation No. 64, I think it would be more appropriate for her to ask the Standing Committee on Urban Services to look at the matter. That is the process that I believe is most appropriate. We now have a variation which is in place. We now have communities affected by redevelopment of local centres and those who want to redevelop local centres working on the basis of the decision the Assembly made some 18 months to two years ago. I do not accept that we should just arbitrarily change that now after all that work.

I am prepared to accept that there may be an argument for change in variation No. 64, but that should be done through the processes that this Assembly uses for changing the provisions of the Territory Plan, and that is through the Standing Committee on Urban Services and a formal variation to the plan, either through a recommendation from the committee or initiated by the Government. That, I believe, is the most appropriate course of action.

The Labor Party is prepared to support a statement from this Assembly that precinct master plans for local centres should be developed, but we are not prepared to support that part of the motion which deals with a requirement for those plans to be developed before approval is given for any redevelopment. The requirements for redevelopment

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