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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1100 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Let us turn to the draft variation, Mr Speaker. Under controls over the height of buildings, it says, "Except where provided for below or under section 4, area specific policies, the maximum height of buildings shall be two storeys." So it is not just only two storeys if next to an existing two-storey; it is just two storeys. (Extension of time granted.) What the government says it will do, what it committed itself to doing and what it does are different things. Perhaps Mr Smyth should check his history before he starts commenting on ours.

Secondly, let us look at the Liberal Party's commitment on plot ratio control. You have got to remember that this policy was prepared in the context of the Lansdown review. In fact, it specifically refers to the recommendations made in Lansdown's report. Let us turn to plot ratio controls. The Liberal Party policy then was that there must be a floor space ratio of 35 per cent or less.

Mr Hargreaves: Or less.

MR CORBELL: Or less. What does the draft variation propose? It proposes 35 per cent, except where there is a section master plan which will permit it to be increased to 50 per cent. Who approves it? The minister approves it, not the Planning Authority. So let us reflect properly on the reality of the Liberal Party's previous statements on this matter before we make judgments about Mr Smyth's comments on the history of planning in Canberra.

Mr Speaker, I turn to the final comment I would like to make in relation to Mr Smyth's comments. He said that PALM will consider the streetscape. He said, "We are going to recognise the streetscape. We are going to address the streetscape. We are going to have provisions to make sure the streetscape is protected." I ask the minister: what do you mean by "streetscape"? I looked up the draft variation definitions. In it there are proposed new definitions for a range of terms. There is nothing in here about the streetscape. How can you protect something when you have not even defined it? How can you do it? You cannot do it. It is a nonsense.

The government talks about protecting the streetscape, using fine words, but when you look at the detail, you find that it has not even defined "streetscape". You can bet your boots that a development proponent would be able to stand up in the AAT and say, "This is what I mean by the streetscape and this is what I am protecting," and the government, hapless as ever, would say, "Oops, we forgot to define what streetscape is." Once again, the high-minded, lofty principles they espouse will count for nothing when it comes to testing these provisions in the planning appeals process. What a joke!

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, members should be supporting this proposition today because it says to the government, "Go back and do the work you have not done. Go back and genuinely engage our community in a debate about the most wide-ranging and significant changes to the Territory Plan since the plan's introduction in 1994. Recognise that the reason you only got five submissions was not that everyone thought it was pretty good, but simply that they did not actually know they could make them. Recognise that people only now are starting to appreciate what this document means and give them that opportunity to comment. Do not run around and say that you had a consultation process and there were only five comments. People are not that naive."

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