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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1552 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

recommendations as being an advisory document on the suggested way forward. The committee spent considerable time coming to its conclusions, including receiving over 100 submissions and undertaking over 25 hours of public hearings for draft variation 200.

As the recommendations for draft variation 200 suggest, there is a pressing need to stand back and assess the parallel and sometimes tandem relationship of other planning processes, including the spatial plan and the neighbourhood planning processes, as these are in danger of either going into conflicting directions or being redundant because of the timing or the direction that draft variations like 200 have been steered. The recently-completed neighbourhood planning process in Turner is just one example that came to light during the public hearings.

The committee also expressed concerns about a consistent message coming from both the lay and business community during its inquiry about the public consultation throughout the development process of these variations resulting in the final version reflecting community views. This message had also been expressed to the committee for other variations under its consideration. With regard to DV 200, witnesses did suggest that the consultation process was inclusive, but that the concerns expressed were not taken on board sufficiently. They seemed to believe that PALM listened to them but did not hear them, nor did PALM agree with their views.

The committee feels that, as the ACT is limited in the land available to it to serve the needs of the community, planning for land use merits careful and rigorous strategic analysis. Such an approach, the committee argues, has not been altogether evident with both of the variations on which I have presented reports today. As I have said, the committee feels that there is some merit in giving serious thought to taking a breath with the layers of planning processes now current and reviewing them side by side to see what has been achieved, where we are going, where we want to go, and what outcomes are envisaged over the longer term.

The committee has a sense that many of the draft variations that it is receiving-it has six under consideration at present-appear to be ad hoc, reacting to some particular situation regarding a developer or another and it is difficult to always see how these might fit into an overall strategic direction. This could mean that variations such as 175 and 200 are prepared very much on the run, and so then lack the very fine planning considerations that appear to make them in some small way even consistent with the overall thrust of the written statements of the Territory Plan.

The committee acknowledges the efforts of PALM, but feels that the ACT must receive an improved level of land use analysis as insurance for sound highly and sustainable future outcomes. The committee wishes to express its appreciation to those who gave generously of their time to submit their views and also to officers from PALM who assisted the committee during its hearings.

To digress for a second, the officers of PALM spent an enormous amount of time with the committee in the hearings, gave generously of their time and gave honestly and, I thought, very professionally to the process. I would not like undue negativity to come out of this report and be directed towards PALM officers.

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