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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 3241 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The sense of community struck me very strongly and made me realise how important it is to ensure that the planning exercises we undertake in these suburbs, particularly in suburbs like Turner, reflect what people want for their neighbourhoods. We should be ensuring that what they value in a neighbourhood is protected and enhanced as well as allowing for change to occur at a moderate pace. These recommendations seek to address that-particularly recommendation No 2, in relation to section 47, which recommends to the government that the master plan for that section reflect the fact that there is no redevelopment intention.

It is quite clear in a number of sections, and most clear in section 47, that the overwhelming majority of lessees do not have any redevelopment intention in the immediate future, whatever that may mean in terms of PALM's questionnaire. If they do not have a redevelopment intention, the Assembly has already set out a process for protecting that and for ensuring that it is reflected in the planning controls for their suburb.

The difficulty for residents, which really led to this inquiry, was that they felt that PALM were not implementing the clear wish of the Assembly-and the whole basis for the section master plan process coming into effect-that, if there was no redevelopment intention, that should be reflected in the immediate planning controls for the area. That recommendation is very important for the residents of section 47, and I hope the government responds positively to it.

The other recommendation I want to refer to concerns the application of the section master plan and the period in which the section master plan should have effect. At the moment it is open ended as to how long section master plans are in effect for or, indeed, when they are up for review. That does not add any certainty for local residents. If residents who have participated in a planning process have been asked in what period of time they believe they will or will not be redeveloping an area, that period of time should, equally, be reflected in the duration of the section master plan. Unfortunately, that does not occur at the moment, even though, at the moment, PALM do ask residents if they intend to redevelop in the immediate future. But if most residents say no, PALM can come back in six or 12 months and say, "Things have changed. We are going to review your plan, and there is now going to be redevelopment in your area."

That is not an acceptable approach. If residents are asked to state the time frame for which their intentions are clear, PALM should be asked to do the same thing-the government should be doing the same thing. That is the rationale behind recommendation 8. It requires that there should be a formal review, established for the re-examination of all section master plans, at seven to 10-year intervals, so that residents have certainty, people wishing to redevelop have certainty and the government has certainty. Once a master plan is established, it should stay in effect for a period of seven to 10 years and then be reviewed, re-examined and possibly revised after that seven to 10-year period.

Recommendation 8 provides a level of certainty about redevelopment in the inner north that has not existed to date. It will allow for a more moderate pace of change that still accommodates the pressures and the demands for different types of housing to be built in established suburbs like Turner whilst at the same time protecting, in a more significant

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