Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (20 August) . . Page.. 2475 ..
MS GALLAGHER (continuing):
public transport and services which have regard for environmental sustainability and the leafy garden nature that sets Canberra apart.
We should be celebrating the progress we have made in protecting the unique heritage of Canberra and the recognition we have achieved for our example of city garden planning and as a leader in protecting this plan and consulting with the community. We should now be looking forward to measures which ensure this continued protection and consultation.
MS TUCKER (4.33): I will make some comments about this. In principle, the Greens support the garden city variation. It picks up the basic planning position and principles we have been promoting since we have been in the Assembly. That is that you target where redevelopment occurs-and that it certainly should be related to town centres and public transport. So we have no problems with the fundamentals of the approach. I think what Ms Gallagher has said is important. People in the community feel very strongly about where they live. We cannot undervalue the importance of understanding this. It is sometimes referred to as their sense of place. People feel very insecure when confronted with a lot of change, especially if that change appears to be random and unpredictable.
With this sort of approach, there is a framework or structure developed, and people in the community understand that change will occur. That is, to a degree, going to lessen some of the insecurity, even if some people do not like the change.
There are positive social and environmental arguments for being careful about where we enable redevelopment to occur. Obviously, we are never going to please everybody. Some people in the development community do not like it and want to have a free rein. The previous government took that approach. That had an impact which was deleterious to people's notions of what was happening to Canberra-the city they love. That was a quite significant aspect of the last electoral cycle and the election campaign. We now have a more structured approach.
Having said that, I would be interested to see how this broad framework is implemented and how it works out in practice-or the detail of it. The proposal of 200 or 400 metres around different sized centres could be too restrictive, or inappropriate for particular locations. There is a necessity for flexibility in the appropriateness of the use of such criteria.
I do not know how much flexibility there will be-maybe Simon Corbell will talk to that-but there must be a capacity for solutions which fit particular communities and suburbs. That brings the role of neighbourhood planning into decisions made about these sorts of issues. I know some people in the community are concerned because they do not understand-I do not understand either, but perhaps Mr Corbell can make it clear-exactly how the neighbourhood planning process sits with this variation, which has precedence or how they work together. People are interested in understanding that.
There are other general process issues about the new planning authority which are related to this. I understand there will be a committee, so those issues can be looked at at that stage. Examples of those concerns would include, as I understand it, the fact that the new authority has a function of reviewing its own decisions.