Page 1498 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The ACT needs a planning system that encourages investment, institutes certainty, encourages innovation and creativity, empowers industry and gives confidence to neighbourhoods. A comprehensive review of the territory plan is required to ensure that development and investment in our community is encouraged. Not only does the territory plan need to be reviewed; this government must ensure that it consults with relevant stakeholders before any further changes to the planning system. The government needs to consult with industry before legislation is drafted, otherwise we will continue to see backflips and amendments when the government suddenly discovers that its changes are not workable and in fact stifle development in the ACT.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is time for the government to take planning in the ACT seriously. Consultation and transparency are essential to any good planning system. This government has a terrible record for both of these. It is for that reason that my motion today calls on the government to arrange an independent review of the planning system and to finally start consulting on the future of our territory.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (4.37): The government will not be supporting this motion today. But I am disappointed that once again Mr Coe is questioning the planning system in the ACT. The system is in place to implement the long-term environmental, social and economic goals of the territory and is a system that achieves contemporary best practice that other jurisdictions aspire to.
Let me turn to the different elements of Mr Coe’s motion. Yet again we see Mr Coe questioning the process associated with variation 306. I refute his claim that variation 306 was mismanaged. It was prepared as part of the review of the territory plan following the introduction of the restructured territory plan in 2008. The policy content was reviewed and updated as a result of changing economic, social and environmental circumstances. This review related to all forms of development in residential zones and the subdivision of land.
Mr Coe chooses to continually highlight largely unsubstantiated negative comments that were previously made by some in the housing industry and some professional organisations in regard to this variation, but he fails to concede that the variation introduces many worthy planning initiatives, not the least being significantly improved solar access policies at both the subdivision and building stages. These must be embraced as vital components in the quest for a more sustainable city.
Mr Coe also fails to acknowledge that there was and still is strong community support for a range of key initiatives introduced in this variation. The community has embraced new policies that were introduced with the variation, including those in regard to secondary residences, the new rules applying to multi-unit residential development in RZ2 zones and the new solar policies. These were moderate and sensible policies built largely on rules that were previously in existence.
There is, of course, a diversity of views in planning debate, even within the same industry and professional associations, and the government has been listening to these
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video