Page 663 - Week 02 - Thursday, 6 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I hope that ACTPLA will be able to monitor planning applications and prevent inappropriate developments. I just wonder whether what ACTPLA considers is inappropriate will be the same as what the Canberra community most personally affected will think is inappropriate and whether it will have the resources to deliver. It is a matter of values and priority. The whole process indicates that the interests of residents and developers are not being treated as being of equal value—but of course the residents have more votes.
While I do not suggest that developers have corrupted the system to anywhere near the extent that we are witnessing in New South Wales—by a very long shot—I do have concerns that political funding and organised and consistent lobbying, of both major political parties, by developers has shifted the focus of governments towards being more interested in serving the interests of developers and solving the problems that developers have raised, making them less responsive to or concerned with preserving and improving the amenity of the city for the rest of the inhabitants and with pursuing environmentally responsible urban planning outcomes.
The interference of the previous commonwealth government by doing such things as approving unconstrained development at the airport precinct has not helped the cause of efficient urban planning. I welcome the lifting of the height restriction in Gungahlin town centre; I know that was one of the things that the community council asked for, because they are very keen to attract development. (Extension of time granted.) Hopefully, lifting the height restrictions on the Gungahlin town centre will lead to more offices being erected there. But there is still the concern that this whole process means that the community will not have a say in those individual buildings; that is what is being lost through this process. So I welcome the lifting of the height restrictions, but I hope that the people of Gungahlin get the buildings that they want.
I turn to changes to the Braddon plan. It is understood that Civic is heading out that way, but there are a couple of losses there. One is that at the moment Braddon does have cheap retail space, so we are seeing there some of the niche businesses that can no longer afford to be located in Civic. I note in particular some designer dress shops—locally produced things. I am very concerned that we may end up with a retail precinct that is pretty much the Canberra Centre writ large. We have a real lack of places where people who are just starting up in business, who are doing something different from the chains, can afford to rent. And Braddon has provided that. I am also concerned that we do not lose the heritage quality of the residential areas of Braddon, because it is good to have such places near the city.
The government has a stated intention of not incorporating any policy changes into the new territory plan. I am not quite sure—I hope Mr Barr can tell me when he closes the debate—when being policy neutral entered the equation. I am told by a lot of community organisations that they embarked on the consultation process without that understanding that the changes were to be policy neutral and they found that a lot of the work they did was rejected because it suddenly did not fit the time frame. I will not speculate on that; I will wait and hear the answer.
Mr Barr: It was 1 May, I am told.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .