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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1093 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

same time as they are allowing change to occur. The challenge for me as planning minister is to ensure that the tools are in place to achieve that outcome.

Last year, I gave a direction to the ACT Planning Authority to give paramount consideration to high-quality design and sustainability in the assessment of development applications. The tools to achieve that include the quality design indicators, the Canberra sustainability index and site analysis guidelines, and the establish of a design review panel to complement PALM's capacity to change the culture of some parts of the development sector to one of striving for excellence. There will be further announcements on that. (Extension of time granted.)

Draft variation 125 to the Territory Plan, which sets out new residential policies for the ACT, seeks to achieve a balance between protecting and enhancing these qualities and characteristics and providing the economic, environmental and social benefits that a competitive, modern city needs to be able to provide. The draft variation is to take interim effect on 29 March, tomorrow. I announced it last October. An issue was raised about the lack of consultation. It seems to be that, if you have consultation, there must be some noise or controversy about it. The reality is that we have been out there consulting and the consultation produced a number of submissions. How many, Mr Speaker? Five.

We have been to every LAPAC to explain this variation. There have been public meetings. There were three or four in October and November. There were more in December. There have been more this year. Indeed, there were three tonight. We addressed the Weston Creek Community Council, there was a meeting at the Ainslie Football Club after we had had a letterbox drop over a wide area to entice people to come and listen, and there was one at Deakin for members of the HIA. There has been plenty of consultation. Do not make the mistake of thinking that, because there has been no controversy or noise, we have not been out there adequately addressing the needs of the community and consulting with them, because we have. The interim effect is to remain in place until the draft variation has completed its consultative processes and then the process, which includes the Planning and Urban Services Committee, would allow the changes to take place.

Mr Speaker, in totally replacing the existing residential policies, part B1 of the Territory Plan, the draft variation provides a new framework, comprising a number of elements: general controls applying throughout the ACT; the ACT code for residential development, ACTCode; area specific policies; and section master planning for specific sites. Section master plans will be required for all multiunit development throughout Canberra, again an enhancement and a step forward.

The great majority of the residential policy variation is not new. Rather, it brings together in one document the ACT standards for new neighbourhood development, the subdivision of land, and the design and siting of all housing types, including medium and higher density redevelopment. For the foreseeable future, by far the majority of the established residential areas are intended to retain their present character.

Heritage precincts and heritage suburbs were raised. For those that have not been paying attention, we have been out again consulting on, I think, the nine heritage precincts because the existing citations in the Territory Plan are too weak and cause us all sorts of grief in the AAT. We will strengthen the heritage precinct citations and we will make

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