Page 5570 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
a variation in relation to a future urban area under section 95 or section 96; a variation to change the boundary of a zone or overlay under section 96A; a variation required to bring the territory plan into line with the national capital plan; and a variation to omit something that is obsolete or redundant in the territory plan.
The section relied upon in this instance is 87(b). That indicates:
a variation (a code variation) that—
(i) would only change a code; and
(ii) is consistent with the policy purpose and policy framework of the code; and
(iii) is not an error variation;
The key expression is “the policy purpose and policy framework of the code”. As I have indicated, the concept plans for both these suburbs are substantially and substantively different in fundamental character and nature to the results as foreshadowed in variation 2010-31.
It is worth noting, for example, that the amendments will remove requirements for playing fields, substantially increase the numbers of dwellings but remove controls on the indicated mix of dwelling numbers and types. This affects the entire nature of the suburb, from open space amenity, to block size and dwelling mix, to traffic management and access. These technical amendments have just added 1,200 homes with no extra roads. And still the GDE is not finished. This appears to be more than a technical variation.
One of the more concerning aspects to come to light since this technical variation was exposed is the seeming lack of consistency or direction in planning from this government, with ministers passing the buck and playing dumb. We had the debacle of the Chief Minister appearing on radio without knowing the planning minister had refused to speak on the matter. Yesterday, we had the planning minister indicate that a technical variation such as this would come from another agency. We had the head of LAPS categorically denying that technical variation 2010-31 had its genesis in LAPS. It does beg the questions: where did this instruction come from, who is running planning, and why is it being done in secret?
I have already talked about streamlining this system. This sorry saga is a perfect example of the confusion and poor planning, poor processes and poor decisions that come from multiple ministers and the current agency mix all trying to push their agenda but, it seems, working at times at odds with each other.
What the act does not allow is: while it could be argued there is a general policy framework of generating more affordable housing and infill, that does not allow a government to fundamentally alter the territory plan without proper consultation and involvement of the Assembly as required under the act. It does not allow them to sneak through substantive changes masquerading as technical variations. If a change is to be made, it should be made properly, professionally and lawfully. Therefore,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video