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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3319 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

I thank those people who participated in the inquiry. I thank the secretary, I thank the minister and his staff and I thank also the members of the public who made a contribution to this inquiry. I commend the report to the house.

MR CORBELL (4.23): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is a sign that the committee process is in good health that, even though every member of the Planning and Urban Services Committee could not agree on whether rural residential development was appropriate, we have been able to put forward two unanimous recommendations about the way ahead.

As the chairman of the committee, Mr Hird, has pointed out, I do not agree with the concept of rural residential development for the territory and all the evidence that I saw presented to the committee's inquiry only reinforced that view. However, it is clear that the government itself and at least one and possibly two members of the committee believe that rural residential development should be progressed.

But unanimously we could not agree with the government's assertion that it should be progressed within the framework of residential land use as it is currently defined in the Territory Plan. Instead, the committee believed that if the government felt rural residential development was an appropriate land use for the territory, it should be progressed by introducing a new land use category for the Territory Plan. In that way, this place could have the final say in relation to whether it is an appropriate land use for the territory. Do not try to use the current residential land use classifications, which are really for more traditional suburban subdivision. Introduce a new land use category that explains rural residential development very clearly.

I think that the recommendation is important because the government has shifted ground as this issue has evolved. Initially, it started off by talking about rural residential development very much of the kind that we see in surrounding shires in New South Wales. Then the government moved to saying that it was going to be upmarket rural residential development, whatever that means. Finally, the government moved to saying that they would really be just large suburban blocks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is quite clear that the government still has a very unclear proposition in mind as to what exactly it means by rural residential development. But it is clear from all those statements that the government is not proposing the normal style of suburban subdivision. Therefore, the normal type of land use category, residential, is not suitable, in the committee's view, for the type of subdivision the government apparently is proposing.

That is the challenge to the government. If they want to progress rural residential development, they should do it in a way which involves introducing a new land use classification as a variation to the Territory Plan, let it be examined in detail by the Planning and Urban Services Committee, and let it be subject ultimately to the veto of this place if members feel that it is not an appropriate proposal.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the other issue that is worth commenting on is recommendation 1 of the committee, which says quite clearly that the buffer zone between Hall and any possible residential development in the Kinlyside valley should be improved. I think that is a very important recommendation. It is quite clear that the current relationship

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