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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2581 ..

succeed—and I think that in some ways it has. We discussed how granting ACTPLA a greater degree of independence would allow the authority to engage more directly with residents of the territory, rather than having its views continually mediated through the political prism. I think some of that has been achieved and is something to be supported.

As the minister noted, the policy framework is put forward by government and then the independent authority has responsibility for the implementation of that. That is why it is pleasing to see the guidelines being put forward today to streamline the implementation of planning processes in the territory. However, we have not seen an engaged community focused planning consultation process taking place. There has been an increasing tendency for the authority to try to disengage from community consultation and shut out and ignore the views of residents. That is quite disappointing.

As I have said a number of times before, planning is not simply an expert pursuit where if we leave everything to the professionals, all will be well. Of course I respect the input of professionals but we are planning a city in which people will live their daily lives. Their opinions and their input into the process are important. There is an essential and important role for professional planning in our city and the role of the community is fundamental to a good planning system.

A good planning system is one responsive to the needs and wants of the population and which allows the community to participate in how the city is shaped. Good planning comes from developing grassroots ideas and necessities, not from imposing control from above. Good planning means people have confidence in the system and feel some ownership of the process. Other members have raised particular planning decisions, but have shown that good planning processes, where people have confidence in the system, have not been followed.

Another example is that of developments around the Belconnen lake shore. There is longstanding community concern about developments too close to the lake. We have seen preliminary assessments and development applications being continually put forward for developments that have rightly upset the community. It is quite concerning that, even though these issues have been brought before the government and ACTPLA a number of times, this proposal is still being pushed forward.

These proposals have no LAPAC to go to. Despite the fact that the minister has indicated that the community council can make some comment, it is clear that the development applications, the planning applications, can be considered a fait accompli and the developments will go ahead whatever the community opinion is. That is not good planning. I think that the motion moved by Mrs Dunne is substantially a good motion for addressing some of the ongoing issues that remain about planning in the ACT. With that being said, I support Ms Tucker’s amendment to clarify the key issues we are focusing on.

Question put:

That Mr Corbell’s amendment be agreed to

The Assembly voted—

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