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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3786 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

the need to simplify the plan, or at least reduce the appearance of complexity, as part of streamlining the planning system, and to reposition the plan as a means of sending more positive signals both to the community and to potential investors.

the opportunity to incorporate references to specific initiatives such as Civic revitalisation, the international airport, and the ACT greenhouse strategy.

the desirability of expanding part A3 to provide a clearer "road map" of the workings of the plan and related elements of the planning system.

the need to emphasise a more flexible, performance-based approach to development controls and the assessment of proposals.

The draft variation was released for public comment on 25 March 2000, with the closing date for comments being 22 May 2000. Eleven written submissions were received as a result of public consultation on the draft variation. While none of the submissions expressed opposition to the general thrust of the proposed revisions to part A, and several commented favourably on changes made, comments were made on a very diverse range of related issues.

The Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services in their report No 76 dated August 2001 made four recommendations about the draft variation. Significantly, the committee has recommended that the draft variation be referred to its successor in the new Legislative Assembly for consideration along with draft variation No 125 dealing with the new ACTCode for residential development. The main reason for this recommendation is the inclusion of the proposed process for preparing and approving master plans in part A of the Territory Plan. This process is currently set out in a practice direction issued by the ACT Planning Authority. The intention of including this process in part A was to make it more available and accessible to the general community.

However, the committee has raised some concerns about specific aspects of the current master planning process which it would like to have further considered along with ACTCode. However, it has not raised any specific concerns with the revised goals and strategic principles proposed to be included in the rest of the revised part A.

Rather than defer the whole of draft variation 155 for consideration with draft variation 125, the government therefore proposes that the revised draft variation 155, excluding the provisions relating to master planning, be re-submitted to the committee's successor early in the term of the new Legislative Assembly. The committee's recommendation on the provisions relating to master plans will then be reconsidered at a later date in conjunction with DV 125. In this way the majority of the reforms contained within draft variation 155 and broadly supported through the consultation process will not need to be delayed unnecessarily.

MR CORBELL (4.02): Mr Speaker, the government's response to this report is disappointing because it seeks to pursue the implementation of draft variation 155 to the Territory Plan contrary to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services.

The minister has sought to separate the issue of master plans from the broader range of issues inherent in the draft variation. The minister has indicated that he is prepared to revise draft variation 155 to remove the master planning provision and have that considered again, along with draft variation 125-that is the new ACTCode 2, residential

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