Page 1502 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in relation to amenity. Master planning processes include consultation with relevant stakeholders, including business owners, local residents and other interested parties.
A territory plan variation involves consultation with other government agencies as well as the broader community. And the planning system affords scrutiny of variations, including through this Assembly and its committees. If the standing committee decides to hold an inquiry, of course, there is an opportunity for even more direct input. Given this ongoing and daily regard for stakeholders’ concerns demonstrated by the staff of ESDD, the Planning and Land Authority and other agencies, I find Mr Coe’s motion quite silly.
In conjunction with the community, the government will continue to review the territory plan to ensure it reflects contemporary best practice. As the principal assessment document, the plan is the key instrument in shaping the settlement pattern for our city, and variations to the plan allow the government to refine its strategic planning objectives by providing for more opportunities for development in residential areas and in adjoining commercial centres.
The government will not be agreeing to this motion today. The government has a comprehensive and a strategic planning framework informed by the ACT planning strategy and transport for Canberra, and reflected in the territory plan, informed through a detailed master planning program. That is this government’s commitment to the future of our city, and the government will not be accepting this motion today.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.51): I will not be supporting Mr Coe’s motion. As he said when he stood up, it does make the same points he has made on a number of previous occasions, and I do not think his arguments have improved on any of the points that he continues to make.
The ACT Greens support the framework of the current ACT planning system and have consistently and actively advocated for greater community consultation in the planning process, which we have been able to achieve through measures such as improved notification and pre-DA consultation requirements. Last year in this place, for example, when we debated draft variation 306, we asked the government to actively engage further with industry stakeholders and the broader community to work through some of the concerns about the unintended consequences of the changes.
I also asked Minister Corbell for further consultation on a technical amendment relating to the definition of the “northern boundary” in relation to solar envelopes for housing. That has since been done through a community and stakeholder workshop in March. I understand from those who were in attendance that this was a successful session. From the feedback we have had, I understand that both the Griffith Narrabundah Community Association and the MBA indicated they found it to be a very useful and well-organised session involving a constructive conversation about how best to meet the goal of good solar access for all Canberrans.
I think this underlines the point that government is constantly striving to work to get these things right and, where good conversations are had, we usually get better outcomes. That is the benchmark that we need to be striving for—to get those
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video