Page 1501 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Coe has raised his concern regarding the alleged growing complexity of the territory plan. Any statutory planning document is inherently complex. It requires provisions that cover a broad range of development activities. It is a legal document and must be robust in legal review, in judicial review. The territory plan is comprehensive, and it needs to be. The territory plan is, nevertheless, developed to be a user friendly document.
Development controls and provisions are separated by the zone they apply to and, for residential development, by the type of development proposed. Area-specific policies are grouped together in precinct codes, making it easier to find the planning requirements applicable to the block. Given the range of information the territory plan must necessarily provide, I challenge Mr Coe to suggest a more appropriate structure. Other statutory and policy instruments can also be interpreted as complex, but to protect life, property or human rights, they need to be. And it is the same with the territory plan.
I must say that I do not understand Mr Coe’s concerns about the alleged lack of awareness of the light rail project. The city to Gungahlin corridor has been identified as a route suitable for rapid transit through the transport for Canberra strategy. Following consultation and discussion with the community, light rail has been identified by the government as the preferred solution for the corridor due to its urban renewal benefits and transport benefits along the corridor.
Last year in the very early planning stages of capital metro, community and stakeholder views were sought through the light rail integration consultation. Findings of that consultation have been used to inform the project brief that is guiding the work of the technical advisers, a highly experienced consortium of engineers and designers, including the world-leading firms ARUP, Hassel and Parsons Brinkerhoff, alongside local Canberra consultants.
Since the establishment of capital metro, its senior staff have spent significant time engaging with stakeholders, including the MBA, the NCA, the Planning Institute, Engineers Australia, the Property Council, the chamber of commerce, the Canberra Business Council and many more. Our project director, Ms Emma Thomas, has attended many community council meetings across Canberra, briefing community members on progress and plans.
Capital metro has worked in partnership with other groups in the community, including Archives ACT and the Australian Railway Historical Society, to raise awareness of the important role that tramways played in Burley Griffin’s original vision for our city and how light rail will help to build many of the attributes that Griffin wished for his city in his original design. The government will continue to engage with stakeholders through this important process. And I strongly refute the claim by Mr Coe that the government has a lack of regard for stakeholders.
Every day the work undertaken by government agencies needs to balance the views and concerns raised by diverse and different stakeholders. The assessment of a DA needs to balance the rights of a property owner with the rights of surrounding lessees
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video