Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1927 ..

MR CORBELL

The Planning and Environment Committee has considered the revised draft variation, and in it's report No 15 of 29 April 2003 made 15 recommendations.

The committee's major recommendation is that the government not proceed with draft variation 200. The government does not agree with this recommendation. The consequences of not proceeding would be to revert to the policies applied under the former Liberal government and not deliver the government's policy to introduce better residential policies and codes that affect Canberra's garden city character. I am concerned that the full ramifications of this committee recommendation may not have been appreciated by all members of the committee.

The committee additionally recommended specific changes to the draft variation in the event the government did not agree to not proceed with draft variation 200. The government can agree in part to this approach and, accordingly, has approved a modified variation 200, which I am tabling today.

The main modifications are to agree with the committee's recommendations that the 800-square metre block limit for dual occupancy be maintained and also to extend the cut-off date even further to allow developments in the planning system more time to be completed before being subject to new subdivision and change of use charge procedures.

The government does not agree, however, with the committee's recommendations relating to:

introducing additional guidelines for dual occupancy development;

abandoning the sliding scale plot ratio control;

redefining the relationship of private open space to plot ratio;

waiting for the spatial plan, because of revised new residential land use policies; and

retaining PPN 6, guidelines for multi-unit redevelopment, including dual occupancy in residential areas, also known as the Landsdown guidelines, until the spatial planning process is concluded.

The reasons for not agreeing to the committee's recommendations on these matters are provided in the government's response. Despite not agreeing with the committee's recommendation to defer DV 200 pending the outcome of the spatial plan, the government is pleased that the committee has shown real interest in the strategic work associated with it.

On this score, the government is also pleased that the Assembly is responding to the government's leadership on the Canberra Plan. It should be clear to all members now how the strategic planning work, including the draft variation 200, is, and will continue to be, fully integrated.

The government has noted the committee's recommendation in relation to identifying areas to be protected under heritage legislation. However, the committee should be well aware that a well-established system for the identification and protection of areas that need to be preserved already exists in the form of the heritage registration processes under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991, the land act.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .