Page 2139 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Urban Renewal) (5.55): Adding a requirement that proposals that increase floor space by more than 2,000 square metres in some zones must present to the National Capital Design Review Panel is not an appropriate use of the panel’s resources.
Currently, proposals for five or more storeys require consultation with the panel prior to submitting a development application for assessment. This trigger for design review is considered appropriate to respond to urban development that is occurring in new and established areas of Canberra. Additionally, proposals that increase floor space by 2,000 square metres may in some instances be captured by the current referral thresholds for the NCDRP.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (5.55): The design review panel has ended up with many more proposals before it than had been initially envisaged. As a consequence, it has become yet another traffic jam point on the gridlocked development highway. I understand that Ms Le Couteur is talking about a very small number that would come through, but it is the Canberra Liberals’ belief that to add another trigger to push developments past this panel seems unhelpful on a number of fronts, particularly at this time. We are not of the belief that this is an appropriate use of the panel’s resources. We will not be supporting it.
Clause 26 negatived.
Clause 27.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.56): Madam Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that we may have made not the best choices in clause 5. I think it is possible that we voted for clause 5, which is consequential for clause 6, which was not passed, and that will duplicate something in the bill. I just bring this to the attention of the Assembly. I know that the Clerk’s office looks at what we have done to check that we have not done anything that was totally stupid and that totally did not work.
MADAM SPEAKER: Do you want to reconsider clause 5 now or will we do that at the very end?
MS LE COUTEUR: Given that one is consequential on the other, possibly we could leave it to the Clerk’s office. I guess I am in your hands.
MADAM SPEAKER: The vote has to be had here. Is the chamber ready to deal with it now or do we need another few minutes? I think we will go through to the very end and the final question, Ms Le Couteur; then we will come back to it. But thank you for alerting us to that. The question is now that clause 27 is agreed to.
MS LE COUTEUR: This is about Christmas. I am often contacted by people in groups who find themselves aggrieved by a development proposal and even more aggrieved by finding what they think are shortcomings in the processes which could easily be fixed. This clause attempts to fix one of those problems: development
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video