Page 1725 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 6 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
2004, ACT, can be limited by reasonable limits set by ACT laws that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. In combining the Human Rights Act 2004, ACT, within the process of recommendations for this variation to the territory plan, the committee recommends as follows:
… that the ACT Planning and Land Authority expressly addresses the influence of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) on the discharge of its statutory and non-statutory responsibilities, including when proposing variations to the Territory Plan.
There were many views from some of the residents of the apartments in and around the Kingston Group Centre that there should be more opportunity for screening their homes from the non-residents that can often see into them. In working to alleviate some of the tension this has caused for those residents, the committee recommends as follows:
The Committee requests that the bodies corporate in multi-unit residences in Section 22 consider what investments might be necessary to ameliorate the perceived negative impacts of changing adjacent land uses such as window treatments, landscaping and screen planting, solid rear fencing, closure of pathways used as public thoroughfares through private property etc.
As the committee as a whole worked hard to achieve the most desirable outcome for the existing residents, as well as allowing the variation to proceed, it has made the following recommendation:
Subject to the recommendations above, the Committee is of the view that the proposed variation should proceed.
The final recommendation of the committee is to remind private stakeholders how and to whom to refer their complaints or issues relating to problems faced in their local areas, and to assist in being able to have private stakeholders express their opinions without feeling threatened. To this end, the committee recommends as follows:
The Committee invites private stakeholders in dispute over residential amenity and commercial activities to consider the use of the services of organisations such as the Conflict Resolution Service to facilitate the reaching of compromises that may enable conflicting land uses to co-exist more equitably and harmoniously.
I would like to take this opportunity to again thank the members of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment—Deputy Chair, Zed Seselja, and Ms Mary Porter—for working with me on this variation and, of course, Dr Hanna Jaireth, secretary, who has put so many hours into the recommendations of the draft variation of territory plan No 260. I commend the report to the Assembly for it to be noted.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (10.44): I would like to add a few comments to those of Mr Gentleman. The first one is just a technical, procedural one. I do not know how this is to be dealt with but I think the wording of recommendation 6 is slightly different from what was agreed. It was just a one-word change. I do not think it is of great significance but I believe that instead of “the committee requests” we had agreed to something along
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .