Page 1781 - Week 05 - Thursday, 2 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
had understood that it had been taken on board by ACTPLA. We are keen to see neighbourhood planning and master planning used as a key tool to reduce the level of community angst about developments. We have seen two local planning issues come and be decided by the Assembly in recent weeks, at Hawker and Nicholls shops, and I think we would all agree that this is not really the way to run the planning system. Neighbourhood or master planning is one tool which should reduce conflicts like this.
As I said, we believe it is the key to ensuring that the territory plan reflects the aspirations of the residents of Canberra. It was a key part of our agenda in the Labor-Greens agreement and it is a key part that the Greens want to see strengthened in our planning system. Master planning now only relates to the planning aspects of the old neighbourhood planning process, but it still seems to be a way to maybe not ensure but at least try to give the community, which undoubtedly have the best knowledge and ideas on how to improve their own neighbourhoods, a strategic input into the plans for their own suburbs. There are not many master plans for Canberra at this stage, and the Greens are keen to see more developed as a priority. It is a good way to resolve tensions about development pressures before it is too late.
Another issue that the Greens have been pushing for a number of years is ecological analysis as part of the planning process. We know that TAMS have produced some excellent maps with a thorough vegetation analysis, which show in great detail what kinds of vegetation can be found in the various areas across the ACT. TAMS and emergency services have recently developed detailed maps, which look at these vegetation types and what sort of bushfire management they need. This sort of information needs to be part of the planning process. I note that ACTmapi does not have any vegetation references. But, given that we are planning to develop into greenfield areas, surely this is information that is needed in the planning process.
Other issues in the Labor-Greens agreement that we would like to see picked up in the territory plan include incorporating child-friendly and pedestrian-friendly planning principles into all relevant guidelines.
I note the minister’s comments about cutting red tape as part of ACTPLAn. I have no problems with this. But I do get concerned when the term “red tape” is bandied about as if it was all superfluous. I think the minister is proud of our planning system, so I wonder why he gets himself into the trap of calling the system red tape, which insinuates that it should be reduced. Again, I have to say that if we have a system that we stand by but it is not processing things fast enough perhaps it simply needs more people to run it. A person checking that things are done properly is not necessarily red tape.
I thank the minister for clarifying exactly which codes are currently under review, as it is an issue I was going to be pursuing this week anyway. However, I would appreciate some more detail about the time line for the code review and consultation around this process. In particular, I have been advised that some technical amendments are being made to mid-sized block codes. As I understand it, these variations, being technical variations, do not go to the Assembly’s planning committee and have minimal consultation, but they can have significant changes and impacts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .