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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3334 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

in a way which is open, consultative and collaborative. The government is listening to the issues raised during consultation and then responding in an appropriate and carefully considered manner. In addition, the ACTCode community advisory panel will provide further advice on any revisions made to draft variation 200. The input of the panel should also ensure that any unintended consequences are removed.

May I remind the Assembly that this variation is still in draft form. While it does have interim effect, it will not become part of the Territory Plan until it has been the subject of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment's consideration, and then is supported by a majority of members in this place. Mrs Dunne has a key role to play in this process by chairing the committee that is charged with reviewing the proposed variation, and recommending to the Assembly whether it should be adopted, varied or rejected.

There is ample opportunity in this process for any unintended consequences that Mrs Dunne seeks to raise to be addressed. I will certainly undertake to consider very carefully any recommendations that the planning and environment committee makes in this regard. However, I do not accept that there is any basis whatsoever for condemning the government about what it is trying to achieve. On the contrary, I believe the people of the ACT will support the government for actively working to protect Canberra's open, leafy character, and providing for a long-term, sustainable future for our city.

MS TUCKER (4.09): I will speak briefly to this. I have to say that this running commentary from Mrs Dunne in the Assembly on draft variation 200 is getting a bit tedious. There is no doubt that this variation does represent a major change from the previous ad hoc redevelopment allowed by the previous Liberal government, which is probably why she objects to it so vehemently.

The variation's focus is urban consolidation around the local centres and public transport routes. The Greens support the approach, as it will make more efficient use of the urban infrastructure and the public transport network. It will also meet the demand for denser housing, while keeping most of the suburban area in the traditional low-density form that gives our city its bush capital character. However, there is a lot of detail in the variation that should be considered. As I have said before about this issue, Mrs Dunne has not come to grips with the fact that this is a draft variation. The point of putting out a draft is to draw out community opinion before finalising the variation.

This process is already working, as I have already received a number of comments from constituents from both sides that DVP 200 is too restrictive, or that it allows too much redevelopment. There is a particular need to look at the impacts of the proposals on particular suburbs. For example, the suburb of Downer is close to Dickson shops, as well as having its own local centre, so some 40 per cent of the suburb will end up being available for redevelopment under DVP 200.

This is a healthy and necessary debate, as the planning of our city is of great interest to residents and we do not want to get it wrong. I therefore see this draft plan variation as more of an interim step, until the development of the spatial plan and the various neighbourhood plans is much more advanced, and there is a clearer view of what types and locations of residential redevelopment are acceptable.

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