Page 1770 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
For instance, one of the criticisms of the draft territory plan was that, to come within the code assessment, and therefore avoid a development application and the possibility of third party appeal, the rules were too restrictive. This included in some cases six-metre setbacks for residential blocks, and a 50 per cent site coverage provision, which includes paved areas. These provisions would not contribute to housing affordability and seem overly restrictive, limiting the amount of land which home owners can utilise.
There are numerous other examples cited by industry in relation to the draft territory plan which are too restrictive. Some of these relate to prescriptive design rules for apartments, such as in relation to balustrades and things as detailed as banning common walls for bedrooms in apartments. The initial claims of policy neutrality were rejected by industry, and this initial claim is no longer maintained by government—certainly if the website is anything to go by.
In relation to some of those issues, at the time they were raised with ACTPLA and government we were told that some of those prescriptive design rules that I have mentioned were not actually changes; they were simply bringing into line things that had already been there which perhaps were not well understood beforehand. Of course, now that policy neutrality is no longer being maintained, it becomes more difficult to maintain the argument for retaining some of those prescriptive design rules.
I will not go too much further into the territory plan but I did want to touch on that matter. As I say, this legislation is very important but it is even more important that we get the territory plan right because that is where a lot of the detail will be. It is crucial to the process and, no matter how good the legislation is, it will not be worth much if we do not get that territory plan right.
Increasing the number of developments that do not need development approvals, such as new single residences in greenfield sites and small structures, including garages, sheds and pergolas, is welcome. This should play the dual role of freeing up ACTPLA staff for more important tasks and saving Canberrans money. We therefore welcome it and support this aspect of the bill.
Just as the territory plan is critical to the success of planning system reform, so is ACTPLA. While improvements have been made, further improvements are necessary. There does need to be more of a culture of assisting the public with their needs rather than an overly prescriptive attitude to development. Those working on the territory plan and this legislation have faced a very difficult task without having the kind of resources which this task requires. But I do commend them for the work that has been done, particularly on this bill, because I think it is quite a gruelling process. I know many of them are present. It is difficult; they have not had a lot of resources and it has been a challenging process. I commend them for the work they are doing in trying to bring about these changes. Nevertheless, improvements to the efficiency of ACTPLA will be an important addition to any efficiencies which are achieved as a result of the passage of this bill.
The stated aim of better focused consultation, public notification and third party appeal processes is a good one. I am of the view that public consultation and notification in the planning process is important. However, this needs to be balanced
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .