Page 4981 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
population, environmental resilience and building economic diversity. Based on what we heard from the community, time to talk established a desired future scenario for Canberra in 2030.
The draft ACT planning strategy, which was released by my colleague Mr Corbell, the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, for public consultation last week seeks to deliver this scenario. It sets the direction for future development of our city to ensure it remains an attractive, liveable and sustainable place to live, work and play. The public consultation on the draft strategy, which is open until 18 December, gives the Canberra community a meaningful opportunity to consider what areas are important to achieve their preferred scenario.
It is critical that this revised strategy provide the context for the community to provide feedback on where the priorities for more detailed planning should be. Ultimately, the final ACT planning strategy, when it is adopted, will be the tool that informs and guides change in centres and areas. It will provide the context for considering the future program of master plans.
As has been outlined previously, the government envisages an ongoing program of approximately four master plans each year for the next six years, subject to annual budget funding. A master plan program with a forward agenda of centres provides greater certainty to the community on where, how and when master plans will be delivered. It avoids ad hoc planning undertaken on the floor of this place. It avoids ad hoc adoption of this centre or that centre without consideration that other centres might be equally worthy or, in fact, in greater need of a master plan. And it certainly avoids the Canberra Liberals coming into this place with a political barrow to push and demanding that one centre is more deserving than another. Although I note in that context that the members of the Canberra Liberals have different priorities—and we have already seen this—in relation to the master planning process. I wonder how Mr Hanson feels about the priority of Calwell, say, over Cooleman Court.
A forward agenda for the master plan program takes the politics out of planning. So we will not be supporting Mr Smyth’s call for a master plan to be undertaken of the Calwell group centre today. However, Calwell will be part of the master planning process in the future, and a master plan for Calwell would be an appropriate mechanism to address the relocation of the swimming pool, the inclusion of a new hotel and additional residential uses in the centre. But the timing of the master plan will need to be determined in accordance with the processes that this place has agreed to—a process which is fair, transparent and equitable and not driven by private members’ business motions from sitting to sitting.
Mr Smyth has also raised a number of issues that have been raised in the context of the Calwell group centre and its surrounding areas. I think it is important to note that the vast majority of these issues are not of the type usually resolved through a master planning exercise. The majority of these issues pertain to traffic management and the maintenance of paths, signs and lighting. These are issues that are appropriately addressed through the Territory and Municipal Services Directorate’s works and maintenance programs. Indeed, installing pedestrian crossings, for example, requires detailed investigation and safety analysis. The need for a crossing can be established
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video