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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2004) . . Page.. 4068 ..

MS DUNDAS (4.53): There are few issues that create controversy and argument within community more than planning and development in Canberra. Canberra is proud of its history as a planned city and there is a community interest in the planning system in Canberra that is probably unparalleled anywhere else in this country. The spatial plan has been presented as a strategic view of Canberra for the next 30 years.

Broadly, the Democrats have supported this process and welcomed the community consultations that were held to provide some direction for the future shape of our city. However, the spatial plan omits important elements such as the sequencing and triggers for when additional development will be required. The spatial plan is premised on the possibility of Canberra’s achieving a population of half a million. While this is a possibility, it is also quite possible that Canberra’s population will not increase all that much over the next few decades.

Certainly we need to be ready for higher than expected growth but we need to ensure that we know how to proceed if that population growth does not occur. Recent population growth has been far below the official estimates upon which the spatial plan is based. The ACT grew by only 0.17 per cent in 2003 and, in fact, the population decreased between March and December last year. So, despite low unemployment and placing high emphasis on other social and economic indicators, the ACT could be faced with low population growth for some time. This may mean we need to rethink some of the proposals in the spatial plan and at what time we start looking at future development.

Another much-trumpeted initiative of this government is neighbourhood planning; and, while the general premise of non-statutory community consultation in planning for suburbs is one that the Democrats support, the particular use of neighbourhood planning has had mixed results and has already been discussed based on particular examples. One issue the Democrats have with neighbourhood planning is that it appears to be one-off consultation. The original proposal for continued involvement of communities in the implementation and review of neighbourhood plans has not been forthcoming.

Neighbourhood planning seems to have little longevity and we are, of course, still waiting for some comprehensive response to non-statutory consultation for the future. As I have said many time before, LAPACs were not the perfect consultation mechanism, but they were the best we had before this planning minister simply dismissed them. The government has burdened community councils with the responsibilities of the LAPACs. It is clear that ACTPLA and the government need to spend some time re-engaging the community and rebuilding the trust and confidence that was destroyed by a disregard for community input. They also need to work with the community councils to make sure they are not overly burdened by the considerations now placed on them.

Another area of concern will always be how development is processed and ensuring that planning processes involve a minimum of delay, whilst preserving the right of the community to have input into the process and, if necessary, to have their concerns heard before a tribunal such as the AAT. There needs to be further work done on how the various planning stages are coordinated with one another and with various pieces of legislation. HQSD, PAs, DAs, environmental assessments, tree protection, NCA approvals, heritage concerns, building approvals and so on are all important concepts in

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