Page 1573 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A similar transport pattern can occur in Canberra. We can be a model of sustainable transport. This is extremely important for the future of our city and the wellbeing of Canberra’s residents. It is important in terms of the environment, our economic prosperity, preventing rising costs of living, reducing congestion, improving social wellbeing and addressing preventative health problems.
I would like to make some comments on the draft planning strategy for the ACT released recently by the government. One of the concerns of the Greens is that it lacks a clear direction. One of the challenges is to ensure that there are concrete actions and time lines to ensure that the strategy actually contributes to Canberra being a more sustainable place.
The buildings and other infrastructure we are constructing now should still be used in 50 years time, and hopefully longer. The planning horizon should be at least 50 years. This makes it disappointing that the main environmental issue considered was a cursory consideration of climate change. For example, the strategy should also have considered the impact of peak oil on our transport system and the impacts of climate change on drought, flood and bushfire risk for Canberra. This is something we have talked about before and we have, of course, requested the government to create a peak oil strategy.
The key target in the plan is to have 50 per cent of new housing established within the established urban area of Canberra. This is substantially the same as the current government target which has not been achieved to date, despite it being an integral part of the 2004 spatial plan. In 2011, development was around 70 per cent greenfield and 30 per cent infill. It is important that the final planning strategy makes it clear how it will be achieved in the future. The strategy will need clearer short and medium-term actions and clear ways to achieve a reduction in greenfield site development.
It is disappointing that the draft strategy is not linked explicitly to the 40 per cent greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020. It raises the obvious question of whether the strategy is consistent with achieving these reductions. It is unclear how the planning strategy is consistent with the weathering the change action plans. Three of the pathways in weathering the change assume getting significant savings from transport and the built environment, but this is not really addressed in the planning strategy.
Importantly, the planning strategy also lacks new ways to implement the target of 50 per cent infill. The Greens believe that it is essential to implement the regulations for the change of use charge to allow for rebates for dwellings in strategic locations or for highly energy efficient buildings if the infill target is to be achieved and the infill is to meaningfully contribute to sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction. We also support increased density in appropriate locations such as town centres and group centres. We believe that this should also extend into local shopping centres, many of whom are struggling and would welcome adjacent medium density housing.
In looking at increased density within existing areas, it is important that it is not achieved solely by putting housing on areas of open space within existing areas. This
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video