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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2968 ..

At the same time, we should not be auctioning off particularly large tracts of suburb, as in the case of Harrison, where we already have a suburb plan mapped out but a complete and utter failing of town planning—an absolute, abysmal failing. In the Gungahlin town centre there are kilometres of straight, uninterrupted rear lanes that remind you of nothing so much as Coronation Street. It is a sorry indictment of planning in the ACT that we are seeing new developments come up with this lack of quality of town planning. With an injection of money to review the tools, I hope that we come up with a better planning outcome. I hope I do not have to wait too long to see that.

MRS CROSS (10.34): I will speak briefly on one aspect of the ACT Planning and Land Authority budget. I note that $250,000 has been allocated for this budget year, and $100,000 for budget year 2005-06 to—as Mrs Dunne said—review the territory’s planning and land administration with a view to significantly simplifying the system and streamlining the approval processes.

This review is much needed and has been a long time coming. At present the planning process is so complex and so confusing that it is very often overwhelming for your average Canberran. Since the start of my term, many constituents have sought my help in trying to get through the ACT planning system. Whilst there are, undoubtedly, many benefits to having such a planned city, the current planning regime can, and does, lead to much disenchantment in the community.

The planning process is often long, rigorous and expensive for Canberra citizens and is in much need of review. Worse, the planning process often does not represent the wishes of the community. The perfect example of this was the proposed refurbishment, reconstruction or rebuilding—whatever you want to call it—of the Karralika Drug Rehabilitation Centre in the residential area of Fadden and Macarthur. This was done without public consultation and without consideration of nearby residents.

Whilst I will not drag up all the detail of the Karralika issue, it is an apt example of how the planning process has failed ACT residents. Residents of Macarthur and Fadden were not consulted about a major work that would affect their quality of life. They were not consulted because the minister had the ability to hide behind a regulation—a regulation wrongly enacted in the situation—that allowed him not to consult residents when dealing with a dwelling that provided confidential services.

This is but one example of how the planning process has failed ACT residents. I hope something comes out of this review; I sincerely do. I hope the planning process becomes less complex, less time consuming and less daunting. I hope this is not just another review for review’s sake. But, like Mrs Dunne, I am concerned that this will take two years, and that can only be to the detriment of the residents of the ACT.

MR PRATT (10.36): I raise one concern about planning as it may affect the Brindabella electorate. I comment on the funding hopefully allocated for that. I raise my alarm—I am sorry, Mr Hargreaves, but I have to say this—at the wise words of my colleague Mr Hargreaves who, in the Canberra Times of 9 June 2004, was quoted as saying:

I’m not going to say that the Canberra plan is doing wonderful things for Tuggeranong, because it isn’t.

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