1993_05_may_leader22

THE new Territory Plan brought presented to the ACT Legislative Assembly is a commendable piece of work. It is not only a sound basis for future development of the non-national parts of the territory but it also a significant milestone in the maturing process of self-government.

Self-government has been roundly derided in the past four years and the derision has been supplied with ample ammunition. That ammunition has ranged from the ludicrous electoral process and the Sun-Ripened Warm Tomato party to the Speaker being bitten by a monkey in Thailand. After this week’s plan, that nonsense can surely be put behind us.

The plan was the product of a committee comprising Labor’s David Lamont (chair) and Annette Ellis, Liberals Trevor Kaine (deputy chair) and Tony de Domenico and Independent Helen Szuty. Politically differences (internal and external) were obviously put aside to come up with a plan for Canberra.

Of equal import, these elected representatives threw away the rubber stamp. They rejected significant parts of the draft plan put forward by the ACT Planning Authority in favour of views expressed quite convincingly by a vast range of community groups and individuals.

There will be more public land. There will be more flexibility for single residences (both new and for extensions). There will be a wider range of grounds for appeal against decisions both for proponents knocked back and for neighbours and other third parties who oppose the approval of a plan. The appeals will be head in a non-judicial environment, virtually lawyer free. It will be cheap and quick.

In cases where the lease purpose is changed from, say, single residence to medium density, the appeal process will allow objections to the design and siting of proposed buildings not just the change of lease purpose. This is an important change in ensuring neighbours’ rights are not over-ridden in the name of development.

The committee’s plan addresses issues that the bureaucrats had not seen and overturns some earlier proposals that seemed revenue- and developer-driven. That said, the ACT Planning Authority and Department of Environment, Land and Planning provided an enormous amount of professional, technical and other help to the committee. In other words, they performed their role as respondent to the policy directives of the elected representatives, as it should be; and not proponents of policy. The exercise has been a significant step in the maturing of ACT democracy.

The committee acknowledged that its plan would be more costly. But it said the community recognised this and was prepared to pay in order to maintain Canberra’s urban amenity.

The committee took a step that ACT and pre-self-government Federal Governments have turned a blind eye to for years: the enforcement of lease-purpose provisions on the fringe of commercial areas. It said, no more. Residences are residences, not commercial premises. If people wanted to convert residences to commercial premises they would have to go through the planning process.

The committee also took a long-term view on energy-efficiency. It said new constructions after July 1, 1995, would have to rate four stars on a scale of five for energy efficiency. It recommended the building controller be given power to enforce it. The Government must accept this recommendation. It is for the long-term good of all ACT residents. The Government must not be deterred by the alarmist views of the Master Builders Association and the real Estate Institute that energy-efficiency measures should be watered down because of their effect on the cost of houses, particularly to first-home-buyers.

The logical extension of that is to let people buy cheap cardboard houses, or live in caravans on their new blocks. The important point is that by enforcing up-front standards home-buyers will save in the long term. More importantly, the whole community will save in the long term as more energy to heat and cool homes comes free from the sun and not from expensive fossil-fuel and hydro sources.

No doubt there will be need for some fine tuning after the plan becomes law. No committee can predict every human circumstance. None the less, this plan is far sounder than the one it will replace. The plan puts a stamp of democratic authority on how this city will develop. The challenge now is to ensure it is implemented within the spirit with which it was written.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *