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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2753 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

As has been said repeatedly today, draft variation 200 pre-empts the spatial planning process, it pre-empts and overlaps a number of the neighbourhood planning processes that the minister is so proud of and, in some ways, it runs counter to the discussions we are having as a result of the inquiries that have come out of the bushfires.

I was not saying, "Throw out draft variation 200 completely."I was saying, "Let's take the time to get the planning regulations right. We know there are problems and would all like them fixed."Unfortunately, I am now in a position where I have to say that variation 200 is not right, that we could have done better and, because of that, I cannot support it.

Variation 200 goes to the core of our ideas of what the planning rules should be in Canberra. It will affect the type of housing that we build, where it is located and, in turn, both the degree of sprawl and the cost of housing in the ACT. This variation overlaps considerably the spatial plan about how we should intensify building throughout our city, the amenities of urban open space and the character of our neighbourhoods. It does appear to pre-empt the outcomes of the discussions about that by preordaining the patterns of development of future housing.

One of the main aspects of the garden city is the gardens and the streetscapes. Unfortunately, variation 200 seems to ignore the streetscapes. It looks at the house, how big it can be, its overhangs, its shadows, how it impacts on its neighbours, but not at how it impacts on the street and how that great strip of land that runs between most of our houses and the road will be impacted upon.

That is what most people know as the garden city. As they drive round our streets and our suburbs, they do not always notice the houses, but they notice the trees that sit between the houses and the road. That is, I believe, a part of planning and the maintenance of that has been ignored by variation 200. I am concerned that it is described as the garden city variation as it does not necessarily recognise what Canberrans think about what makes up the garden city aspects of this town.

I will agree that there is some merit in the planning controls specified for the suburban area. The introduction of controls related to solar access and increased permeable areas in suburban development do need to be applauded. However, there are some planning controls included that are best suited for those areas, particularly in parts of the inner north and inner south, where residents currently feel that the garden city character of their streets is being eroded by overzealous development.

In fact, I am certain that in some specific areas of Canberra, the development controls could be even tighter. Certainly, the needs of particular central Canberra residents appear to have been the genesis of this reorganisation of the territory's planning principles. However, there is little evidence that these restrictions need to be blanketed across the entire territory. It has been said that this is a one-size-fits-all approach. I think that that is unnecessary for planning across the ACT.

There are numerous examples of beautiful garden city streets throughout central Canberra and the fear that the aesthetics and amenity of these areas would be lost under the past planning scheme was entirely justified. However, instead of identifying

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