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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3952 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

of the federal government. Its major achievement was to manage the expansion of Canberra beyond the confines of the Griffin plan, which covered only the central area of Canberra. Its development of the Y plan was also visionary for its day, as its breaking up of development into separate towns was quite a departure from the normal suburban sprawl that we see around other cities.

Of course, a major problem with the NCDC was that it also largely did its planning independently of the residents of Canberra, who were starting to get a bit sick of this, and started agitating for self-government and their own control over planning. The NCDC was abolished as part of the move to self-government in 1989. At that time the Commonwealth government introduced the ACT Planning and Land Management Act, which required the establishment of the ACT Planning Authority to prepare and administer the Territory Plan. The land act passed by the Assembly in 1991 gave effect to the requirements of the federal legislation. It established an ACT Planning Authority but specified that this authority was to be constituted by the chief planner rather than as a separate organisation.

Since that time the ACT Planning Authority has been more an idea than a reality. Planning staff have been structured and restructured in different combinations and portfolios. The planners have tended to be just part of a large department with sometimes conflicting reporting arrangements through other senior executives.

Perhaps because of this, and also because of the newness of self-government and the unfamiliar pressures it came under, we have seen a range of dubious planning decisions being made over the last decade that have gone against Canberra's planning heritage. They seemed more about securing short-term political or financial gains, or to keep the development lobby happy, rather than being in the long-term public interest.

With this history, it is no wonder that many residents of Canberra have a strong interest in the planning of their city. Some residents hanker for the return of the NCDC, or for keeping Canberra as the country town it once was. I do not think either of these is possible, or even desirable. Keeping the city frozen in time is not an option. Cities will always change in response to the changing people who live in them. Managing the process of change to produce a better city is the key issue.

Canberra is reaching an age where redevelopment of the older parts of the city is becoming viable, and even necessary. At the same time, economic and demographic changes are starting to have a noticeable effect on parts of the city. The ageing of the population, especially in inner Canberra, and an increase in the number of single-person and couple households, are leading to a demand for more medium and high-density housing. Centralisation of the retail sector has led to the decline of many local shopping centres.

We must remember that urban planning must respond to social trends, not the other way round. For example, attempting to stop urban expansion will not stop population growth. Keeping detached houses with large gardens will not make people have more children. We need to establish planning policies which channel our responses to these broader social changes into making a better city, to build on the strengths of past plans and to correct their weaknesses.

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