Page 1671 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 May 2013

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

Wednesday, 8 May 2013

MADAM SPEAKER (Mrs Dunne) took the chair at 10 am and asked members to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.

Standing orders—suspension

Motion (by Mr Wall) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 3, Assembly business, relating to the rejection of Variation No. 306 to the Territory Plan being called on and debated forthwith.

Planning and Development Act 2007—variation No 306 to the territory plan

MR WALL (Brindabella) (10.02): I move:

That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection 80(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2007, rejects Variation No. 306 to the Territory Plan, Residential development, estate development and leasing codes: Replacement of residential zones objectives, development tables, and housing development codes—Introduction of Residential Zones Development Code and Lease Variation General Code—Replacement of Residential Subdivision Development Code with Estate Development Code.

It is no surprise that the Canberra Liberals are required to go in to defend the Canberra community yet again. This Labor government, after 11 years in office, has monumentally lost touch with the needs and wants of the wider ACT community. It is clearly evident when the detail of draft variation 306 is examined that this draft variation is wide reaching and contains significant changes to the way residential planning may be carried out in the ACT into the future.

It is becoming evident that there is wide disparity between the desired policy outcomes of DV306 and the actual built reality. Whilst some of the elements of DV306 are sound planning policy and achieve positive outcomes for the community, there are many elements that simply fail to achieve their intended aims and, in the case of DV306, the poor outcomes far outweigh the positive aspects.

Given the nature of this block of changes and the complexity of this document, the opposition is moving to disallow DV306 in its entirety. I understand that it is the nature of public consultations that those in the community with an objection tend to mobilise and argue their perspective more effectively than those who are ambivalent or supportive.

In reviewing the public submissions, there has been significant criticism of DV306. There has been objection or criticism to almost every aspect. There are numerous residents associations who fear it will not deliver appropriate outcomes that are in

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