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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2754 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

these areas in need of protection and producing detailed local planning rules to preserve them, the government has rolled out a new system carte blanche, restricting the scope for redevelopment in other areas that may have benefited from a more flexible approach.

Planning in Canberra needs to return to a local scale. Canberra should not be a cloned city where every suburb looks like every other. Policies like variation 200 which force the same level of restrictions and liberties on every community end up disenfranchising everyone. It is quite possible to conduct planning at a local scale in close interaction with individual communities. Neighbourhood planning has begun to operate at this level, though without the scope, resources and democratic processes to properly address all of the community's concerns. For example, it would be possible to envisage a series of residential zonings with different levels of restrictions and policy objectives which, with careful consideration, could be placed to match the needs of local communities.

One of the major concerns I have about the neighbourhood planning process, however, is the way that it has been focused, and continues to be focused, on the inner north and inner south suburbs. I am concerned that neighbourhood planning is not taking place in areas such as Gungahlin which are still undergoing development. What better way is there to get the community involved than when there are still important planning decisions to be made in their neighbourhood? The concerns of the Belconnen region have been completely left out of the neighbourhood planning process. My understanding is that neighbourhood planning will not reach these areas for at least another six years. They have been disenfranchised and at the same time they have had a new planning regime put down on top of them.

I have heard from many community groups about draft variation 200, some of whom argue that it is too lax and will not adequately protect their suburban environment, while others are worried that it is too restrictive and will prevent the regeneration of their area. I understand that we will never reach consensus on planning. So, again, we cannot make everybody conform to a one-size-fits-all formula.

I have never proposed a return to the Liberal's past open slather approach to planning. I have put a proposal forward that draft variation 200 be maintained while detailed local planning initiatives are carried out. Unfortunately, the Minister for Planning has refused this approach and has instead decided to push through without, I believe, giving the people of Canberra the opportunity and facility to develop local planning arrangements that suit the needs of their local areas. I guess it is a question of whose compromise was better.

I understand that a lot of the debate has been about high quality sustainable development and I do agree that the current process is inadequate and not operating effectively. Essentially, the process has become an optional extra for those developers who are interested. But the vast majority appear to pay lip service to the idea or ignore the outcomes completely.

A recent AAT decision has been brought to my attention about a multiunit development which has been through a vigorous HQSD process, producing a result consistent with community standards. However, the developer ignored the idea

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