Page 3913 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
but certainly it has not been well served. Kambah Village is not well served. That is something which a rational master plan, or any rational planning of Kambah Village, would look at—how can we get this better served by public transport?
I very much hear what Mr Stanhope said about trying to work out what order of priorities we have in terms of master planning. There is the point about politics and planning. I strongly feel that debating on the floor of the Assembly is not the appropriate way to determine what part of Canberra will be blessed with some planning process. But equally, I would say that the current process is simply not working—or we would not have these motions. This is not the first motion, and it may not be the last motion.
We are all concerned about the resources that are put into planning in the ACT, and we are all concerned about the happiness and wellbeing of the residents of the ACT. I think we can say that we all want something better. That is what we are talking about in paragraph 2(e) of my motion, which says:
… develop a process for meaningful consultation with the Canberra community on planning, by:
(i) improving Canberra wide consultation on issues such as—
the current ones—
DV301 and DV303 …
I would have to say that both of these draft territory plan variations are almost impenetrable. I found them very hard to read. I admit that I am not a planning professional, but I have learnt a little bit about it in my tenure as the Greens’ spokesperson, and I think it is very hard for people in the community to understand them. But they have considerable impact. DV 301 and DV303 give us the rules for greenfield development and the rules for the redevelopment of our suburban areas. It is a real pity that ACTPLA has not done any meaningful public consultation. I did write to Mr Barr about this.
Mr Barr interjecting—
MS LE COUTEUR: I agree that there was time allocated, but there have not been intellectual resources allocated. There has not been anyone out there explaining to the community what these things mean. The community just do not understand it.
Unfortunately, I am running out of time to get to the rest of my amendments. Basically, what we are saying here is, you could say, that we are agreeing with Mr Stanhope and Mr Barr. There needs to be a priority list of areas to be planned, but this needs to be on the basis of need reflected through community consultation. And these areas are to be master planned and subjected to further localised planning, whether we use the words “master plan”, “neighbourhood plan” or “precinct plan”. The term “precinct plan” is a good one, because precinct plans can explicitly be made part of the territory plan, and in some cases they have been.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video