Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1551 ..
MR HARGREAVES (continuing):
future so that the areas in question are afforded more forward-looking planning treatments that have a consideration and an appropriate co-relation with adjacent areas.
In addition, the committee must express its concerns for the Jerrabomberra Wetlands and the need for sound land use environmental policies that will preserve and protect them and the wildlife that inhabit them into the very long-term future. The committee's recommendations reflect a holistic look at each of the areas and provide a suggested way forward to better benefit Canberra and its community.
The committee wishes to express its appreciation to those who gave generously of their time to submit their views and also to the officers from PALM who assisted the committee during its hearings. Also, I express the appreciation of the committee for the hard work of the committee secretary, Linda Atkinson.
Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell ) adjourned to the next sitting.
Report No 15
MR HARGREAVES (10.43): I present the following report:
Planning and Environment-Standing Committee-Report No 15-Variation to the Territory Plan, No 200, Garden City Variation-Residential Land Use Policies, Modifications to Residential Codes, and Master Plan Procedures, dated 29 April 2003, together with a copy of the extracts of the relevant minutes of proceedings.
The report was circulated to members out of session. I move:
That the report be noted.
On behalf of the committee, I have just presented a report on variation 200 to the Territory Plan which was tabled out of session on 30 April 2003. The committee could not recommend draft variation 200 to the Assembly. It believes that, in its overall effect, draft variation 200 does little to address, let alone safeguard, Canberra's garden city heritage or provide a long-term platform for the city's residential land use. The committee agreed that it failed to adequately reflect changing residential trends and that these could be best addressed in the forthcoming spatial plan.
Other features of the report included: criticism that the proposals were too broad in their application; there was no guarantee of protection of elements in the garden city; the proposals were too uniform and prescriptive; there was a lack of a strategic framework; and the proposals were too short term. In its deliberations, the committee found there were unresolved tensions between urban consolidation, urban sprawl and the garden city idea.
While agreeing that steps needed to be taken to preserve heritage areas and areas of significance, the committee concluded that some areas of Canberra and their architectural features were being protected irrespective of their architectural or planning value while other features were not, often simply because of their proximity to shops.
The committee sees this report as a valuable part of the government's process of consultation in planning matters and asks that the Assembly accept the report and its
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .