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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1925 ..

Finally, Mr Speaker, recommendation No 11 of the committee report is that the government undertake further detailed reviews into industrial land use policies across Canberra. The government has noted this recommendation, but I must say that it does seem to be at odds with the detailed analysis already undertaken on industrial planning issues.

DV175 analysed 20 years of uptake of industrial land and concluded that there is sufficient industrial land for about 20 years for industrial uses. If industrial areas allow for even more diverse retailing facilities, this will be unsustainable, for two reasons: firstly, the lower cost of industrial land and premises will cause retailers to move to industrial areas, thus jeopardising the liability of commercial centres; and secondly, the influx of higher rent retailing will make industrial premises too expensive for industrial trades and storage uses, so that they will either relocate to Queanbeyan or demand the release of more vacant industrial land by the government.

Permitting more higher value uses in industrial areas may create an improved revenue stream for the government through higher rates but will price out of the market lower cost uses and encourage more commercial uses to the detriment and possibly higher vacancy rates of commercial centres, particularly mixed service (trades) areas.

Government revenue from industrial areas is also generated by sale of unleased land in accordance with the five-year land release program prepared by the government and published each year with the budget. As outlined in the background paper released with this variation, the demand for industrial land is currently quite low-five to eight hectares each year-but it's been necessary for the government to restrict land options to specific industries to ensure that needs are met for lower cost activities requiring large sites, such as freight transport.

As mentioned in the response to recommendation 8, the government agrees that the modifications to the proposed policy could allow a limited opportunity to provide some small warehouse spaces without jeopardising the strategy to protect the larger sites for future use by large land take uses.

Draft variation No 175 encourages investment in light manufacturing and heavy transport industries through the policy objectives and through the listing of permitted land uses in precinct "a".

Mr Speaker, after careful consideration of the committee's recommendations, draft variation 175 was further revised to take account of those recommendations from the committee with which the government agrees, and the government has approved that variation.

In relation to the government response to report No 14 of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, I move:

That the Assembly takes note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Dunne ) adjourned to the next sitting.

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