Page 4284 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 25 October 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
urban area under the National Capital Plan. As you are aware, Madam Speaker, the Territory Plan cannot be inconsistent with the National Capital Plan.
In relation to the motion’s paragraph (1)(d), I would like to clarify that only the fringe areas of the Federal Golf Club lease are within bushfire prone areas. The area proposed for development is not considered to be bushfire prone. The panel was advised at its third meeting that the ACT Emergency Services Agency has been separately consulted by the proponent in relation to fire and safety considerations for future development on the site.
In regard to motion item (1)(e), I would like to reiterate that the directorate convened the community panel as a pre-consultation process to ensure early sharing of information and identification of issues. In relation to motion item (1)(g), the ACT planning strategy promotes residential urban renewal and infill that will increase housing choice in established suburbs to meet the needs of ageing residents to remain within their community. This strategy is to be due to be reviewed and it is through this review process that the broader planning considerations are best considered.
In relation to motion item (1)(h), all development proposals are assessed on their planning merits, in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2007. The community panel recommendations, together with the statutory Territory Plan variation process, provide ample opportunity for the full range of stakeholder interests, development options and potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, to be considered in relation to the Federal Golf Club site and surrounding areas. Madam Speaker, the development proposals in Hughes and Deakin will each be considered both on their merits as individual developments and as part of the broader planning strategy for Canberra to ensure that the cumulative impacts of these developments are considered.
In relation to motion item (1)(i), the panel process has been conducted in accordance with the agreed terms of reference. The panel was always intended to be conducted over three months, equating to three meetings. The panel has achieved its purpose and has collected a long list of issues for the club to consider. The panel outcomes will be published as a panel report once it has been reviewed by panel members. In regard to motion item (1)(j), I can confirm that panel members were given a preliminary draft report at the third meeting and were asked to help populate specific content. The draft report has been revised and was circulated to panel members on 20 October this year.
Motion item (1)(k) has been reported out of context. The deputy director-general was responding to comments made by panel members who oppose development on the site. He was citing the specific purpose of a master plan under the ACT planning system and indicated that it was unlikely to suit their stated purpose of preventing development on the Federal Golf Club. The deputy director-general stands by that comment.
In relation to motion item (2)(a), any future Territory Plan variation in relation to this proposal would be subject to referral to the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Renewal. A specific inquiry is not necessary. As stated previously, the ACT planning strategy is due to be reviewed. It is through this review process that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video