Page 1213 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
community. It is certainly important to protect school assets from vandalism, but I am not sure that fencing off the school is necessarily the best way to do this, and it is a shame that communities are subsequently unable to kick a ball around on a school oval on a weekend or use the basketball court that might be on a school site.
The second issue is about continuing the exemptions for minor alterations—section 1.99D. We believe this is an acceptable proposal. The definition of minor exemption needs to be something that we all agree on. I understand that if it is anticipated that an alteration would allow for an increase in enrolment numbers at the school, this would not be considered minor anymore. This definition needs to be consulted on with the community and the school sectors before the regulation is finalised.
The third issue is about new buildings on existing school or childcare facilities—section 1.99C. Again, this is where exemption should depend on whether the new building would allow for a substantial increase in enrolment numbers. If so, the development should not be exempted. If it is only a small new building, or one which would not allow for an increase in enrolment, it could fall within the exemption. This is probably the most contentious part of the regulation, and I hope that ACTPLA is doing some more consultation with schools and community groups to ensure that the right definition is applied to what is an existing school.
The review shows that there is broad agreement that the exemptions should be extended, but that there are a few matters which need closer definition. This includes issues like how to define an “existing school” and what constitutes a minor alteration—issues I have touched on already. However, my understanding is that the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate will go back to basics here and look at the planning implications. The idea of increased enrolment numbers as a benchmark is more of a rule of thumb to reflect the fact that if there are increases in student numbers, there will be increases in traffic around the area, increases in parking needs, and so on.
I note that Mr Corbell did make some references to this in his remarks, and I appreciate that. I think that, whilst there is a definition, particularly, of “existing school” in the Education Act, it does need some clarification. Certainly the Tania Parkes report suggests that they use street addresses instead of block and section numbers, for example. And there is also a question as to whether existing school sites which no longer have a school on them should be counted as an existing school. These are the sorts of issues that I am referring to; it is not to dismiss the issues that are already addressed, but to look at those further issues.
In the case of new schools or childcare sites, there will also be the need to liaise and negotiate with other agencies about issues like tree protection, heritage, utilities and so on. Thus, it seems logical to simply apply the existing full development application process, which incorporates such liaison processes.
I trust that the Education and Training Directorate, the Association of Independent Schools and the Catholic Education Office will all be consulted in the same positive fashion that has shaped the other components of this motion. I know that we are lucky in the ACT to have such good relationships with all the key stakeholders, and I am
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video