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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3333 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Variation 200, the garden city variation, concerns the residential land use policies and related design and siting codes of the Territory Plan. It is the result of a major review of these important policies, and responds to the government's comprehensive policy agenda, planning and people, issued in the run-up to the last election.

The garden city variation essentially aims to do two things: one, preserve the open leafy character of Canberra suburbs, and two, over time, encourage a more sustainable pattern of urban settlement within the city. The first of these objectives will be primarily achieved by limiting the extent of potential redevelopment that can occur in the defined suburban areas, and through the introduction of new building envelope and private open space requirements. The second will be achieved through focusing opportunities for developing more housing in locations close to commercial centres, to improve accessibility, support the economic vitality of those centres, and reduce reliance on the use of private motor vehicles.

The variation is not being rushed. It was released for public comment on 30 May this year and, since that time, the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to publicise, and to engage in a meaningful debate on, the proposed changes. Some 500 submissions have been received on the draft variation, a strong indication of community interest and of the government's preparedness to make the details of the draft variation widely known. These submissions are currently being analysed and carefully considered by PALM. It is also important to note that the government extended the statutory consultation period by a month.

In the August sittings, this Assembly conducted a debate in response to another motion put by Mrs Dunne seeking to have the draft variation withdrawn. I am pleased that the Assembly voted to reject that motion, and to allow the draft variation to continue progressing along its statutory path.

Mrs Dunne is now asking the Assembly to condemn the government for failing to heed warnings on the unintended consequences of draft variation 200. She is effectively asking for us to be condemned because we have failed to heed her warnings. Mr Speaker, a very interesting precedent would be set in this place if that was the approach the Assembly chose to adopt. It is, indeed, a curious notion considering the point we have now reached in the statutory process, and the opportunity that Mrs Dunne, herself, would have as chair of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment to review the draft variation in the future.

I openly acknowledge that the consultation process on draft variation 200 has raised a number of issues that require further consideration, and which in all likelihood will lead to revision of the draft variation before it is submitted for approval. That is the whole point of a statutory consultation process. Already, I have announced one revision relating to the application of the proposed private open space standards contained in DV 200 on new house and land packages. The revision means that, in these circumstances, the existing private open space standards will continue to apply until a revised position is developed for inclusion in the recommended final draft variation.

This should not be regarded as a response to an unintended consequence. The government has a very clear objective of raising the quality of residential development in the ACT, and we make no excuses for it, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, it is doing this

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