Page 2732 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACTPLA is an agency that considers itself to be proudly independent. While the extent of its independence is a bit questionable, given the steady flow of regulatory instruments coming out of the government and the minister’s overuse of his call-in powers and his rarely used but ever-present direction-giving powers, it is clearly not merely another arm of executive government. While that independence removes some of the conflict of interest problems that beset local governments and councils around Australia, it has created resentment among constituents and community groups who believe that the leading planning agency is not committed to working with them, nor answerable or responsive to them. Increasingly, we see appeal rights and legal standing to challenge ACTPLA decisions being stripped away.
The key priority for the authority this year is to deliver the final instalments of the planning system reform. I have already raised concerns about this new regime. It is modelled on the Australia-wide development assessment forum which is being driven by the federal government and the property council. I do not consider that either of these bodies has the best interests of most people at heart or that either of them has any meaningful commitment to the common good. Consequently, I do not find it reassuring that the ACT government is so proud that we are following, indeed leading, in the implementation of this plan.
These reforms are aimed at simplifying the relevant process. That is not a bad thing. Community consultation and appeal rights in neighbourhood planning are all seen as irrelevant distractions from the main game. That is not a good thing. The only role for residents and the only way they can exercise any influence over the shape and character of their neighbourhoods, it would seem, is primarily as voters.
I do not understand why ACTPLA has abandoned neighbourhood planning. It had seemed to develop an acceptable, fine-grained approach to suburban redevelopment. I understand that neighbourhood planning processes are somewhat labour intensive, but the benefits of these intensive consultation processes surely outweigh the additional resources involved in these education, information gathering and consensus building exercises.
One of the benefits that seem to be receiving short shrift from this government is the community’s understanding of development proposals and its acceptance of those developments. I could understand it if government blamed a tight fiscal position that necessitated the cuts in this budget, but ACTPLA and this government had given up on neighbourhood planning long before the budgetary position became obvious.
Why have the government and the proudly independent ACTPLA withdrawn in unison from the field of community consultation on planning matters? Is it because it is just too hard to balance the demands of developers and community interests in such a way as to bring the community along with them in the time frames demanded by developers? The latest development in this process was to remove third-party appeal rights in various urban areas. Apparently, this was delivered to remove the burden of litigious competitors, but it also did away with community appeal rights. How convenient!
ACTPLA has also shown itself to be unwilling to go the extra yard when it comes to developments that are predictably going to be contentious. Despite the minister’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .