Page 2464 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
has considered the issues raised and the government response that provides a detailed response to the committee’s recommendations has been tabled today. I would like briefly to outline the government’s response to the committee’s report.
The committee’s first recommendation was that favourable consideration be given by the Minister for Disability and Community Services and me to supporting a Canberra central or inner south community council, should such an organisation be incorporated in the short to medium term. This recommendation is supported.
The committee’s second recommendation was that I should consider inserting an area specific policy into the territory plan, varying the leases for blocks 14 to 32 in section 22, and/or reviewing and amending, as agreed with industry, the ACT commercial waste industry code of practice and the waste minimisation regulation 2001, with a view to limiting commercial deliveries and waste collection to between the hours of 7.00 am and 7.00 pm in section 22 Kingston.
This recommendation is not agreed to as the territory plan is not the mechanism for addressing commercial waste management practices relating to hours of operation and leases cannot be retrospectively varied. The Department of the Territory and Municipal Services has been consulted on reviewing and amending the code and regulation relating to waste management. The government response provides more detail on the response from the agency on that matter.
The committee recommended that the Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services consider the need for a broader review of waste collection law and policy in view of the increased residential density around commercial centres in the ACT under the A10 residential core area specific policy. This recommendation is not supported at this time as it is considered that the approach should rather be on planning and designing new developments in a way that specifically addresses these concerns. The planning and approval process includes controls on these issues which should be strictly complied with. Existing developments need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis to ameliorate the effects of servicing businesses where concerns exist. This matter is explained in more detail in the government response.
The committee’s fourth recommendation was that the Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services consider whether signs warning of the potential hazard of reversing trucks for pedestrians and cyclists, and particularly the frail, the aged and children, should be installed in block 33 section 22 Kingston. This recommendation was agreed to in principle. The committee’s fifth recommendation—that the influence of the Human Rights Act be expressly addressed on the discharge of its statutory and non-statutory responsibilities, including when proposing variations to the territory plan—is agreed to.
The committee’s sixth recommendation, which requests the bodies corporate in multiunit residences in section 22 to consider what investments might be necessary to ameliorate the perceived negative impacts of changing adjacent land uses, is noted. The committee’s seventh recommendation that, subject to the earlier recommendations, the proposed variation should proceed is supported by the government.
The committee’s final recommendation was about inviting stakeholders in dispute over residential amenity and commercial activities to consider the use of the services of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .