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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2004) . . Page.. 4062 ..

Mrs Dunne: You have seen all those rear lanes in Gungahlin and you are happy with them?

MR HARGREAVES: I also welcome the squeals of delight coming from Mrs Dunne, that she has been able to share her limited time in this Assembly with such a luminary as Mr Corbell.

MS TUCKER (4.33): The ACT Greens are committed to working towards a planning and design framework that will allow people to live in more ecologically and socially satisfying ways, which will promote a healthier and more sustainable Canberra community. It is a more holistic approach than simply trying to address the problems through, for example, the introduction of a territory architect as the Labor and Liberal Parties have proposed this week. Having a design vision for the ACT is important, but it is only one step in the process.

The ACT Greens recently released a comprehensive action plan for planning in the ACT which is cost effective, environmentally and socially sustainable and able to be implemented immediately. The ACT government recently released new development application and design guidelines for residential, multi-residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developments in the territory. The new guidelines replace the ACT Planning and Land Authority’s high quality sustainable design process, introduced in 2001.

Mrs Dunne made several comments about variation 200. I remind members that when the Greens supported that—basically, it is consistent with the planning policy that the Greens have promoted in all the terms of the Assembly that we have been here that you target density around facilities and public transport—we certainly did have qualifications about the implementation and development of that planning framework, which were to do with the neighbourhood planning process which Mrs Dunne spoke about with concern, as well as the high quality sustainable design issues.

One key concern comes up continually when you converse with residents about planning issues. I participate in residents’ meetings as much as I am able to, and this has been consistent also over my time in the Assembly. They are sympathetic to the notion of targeted increased density and the problems with greenfields expansion and infill development, as well as the gross speculative development that occurred under the Liberals. However, residents want to see the quality of the design of the built environment improve so that people are not horrified by what happens when this density is increased. The constant comment has been, “We are not opposed to development if it is good development and takes into account the sense of place we have in our environment, and takes account of privacy and solar access—environmental design and an aesthetic which is acceptable.”

I will admit that the term “aesthetic which is acceptable” is one of the ongoing debates that occur around planning, because there are conservative and conventional ideas of what a suitable aesthetic is for Canberra. Then there is the notion of the aesthetic of sustainability—which the Greens promote, of course—which is about a transformative process, acknowledging the pressures the climate is under due to greenhouse gas emissions and so on, as well as the pressures of population.

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