2

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3 

Summary of Commitments ............................................................................................. 4 

Integrity ........................................................................................................................... 8 

Complexity of the Territory Plan ................................................................................. 8 

Consultation and legislation ........................................................................................ 9 

The Garden City ....................................................................................................... 11 

Land Development Authority .................................................................................... 12 

Land supply .............................................................................................................. 13 

Quality .......................................................................................................................... 16 

Advice, Design and Expertise ................................................................................... 16 

Building quality .......................................................................................................... 17 

RZ2 ........................................................................................................................... 18 

Dual Occupancies ..................................................................................................... 19 

Duplex issues ........................................................................................................... 19 

Variation 306 ............................................................................................................. 20 

Shipping Containers ................................................................................................. 21 

Simplicity ...................................................................................................................... 21 

Planning Directorate ................................................................................................. 21 

Lack of consultation .................................................................................................. 22 

Excessive regulation and fees .................................................................................. 25 

Government interference .......................................................................................... 26 

Growth .......................................................................................................................... 27 

Town centres ............................................................................................................ 27 

Green space in high density areas ........................................................................... 28 

The City .................................................................................................................... 28 

City to the Lake ......................................................................................................... 29 

Canberra Theatre Centre and precinct ..................................................................... 30 

Community land ........................................................................................................ 30 

Transport integration ................................................................................................. 31 

 

 

3

INTRODUCTIONCanberrans are tired of having a planning system that is too complex, lacks balance, provides no certainty, is frequently changed and simply promotes Government thought bubbles.

For generations, Canberra was upheld as an example of how planning and consultations should be done. Our city’s future needs were catered for in infrastructure provision, including green space, schools, local shops and other recreation and cultural facilities. However, in recent years, the planning system has become dominated by lobbyists and other Government insiders who are all working in isolation. There seems to be no vision for the city centre, the town centres, suburbs or the broader footprint of Canberra. This must change.

A Liberal Government will restore integrity in the planning system. We will have a framework and rules that everyone can understand, and most importantly, it will be a framework that shapes the future we want.

The Canberra Liberals will bring confidence, balance, integrity and certainty back to planning in Canberra. We will rein in the role of the Land Development Agency and we will ensure that the city and town centres become the self-sufficient communities that they were intended to be. In doing this, we will restore the vision of the garden city, take the pressure off our suburbs, and ensure that density occurs only in places where we have the infrastructure to support such growth.

The following pages detail the Canberra Liberals’ response to the challenges and opportunities before us.

4

SUMMARYOFCOMMITMENTS1.  A Liberal Government will ensure that an independent comprehensive review of

the Territory Plan is commissioned. The review will cover the Territory Plan and all other planning legislation. The review will be completed in 2017. 

2.  A Liberal Government will ensure that the Territory Plan is available in a more electronically-accessible format. The current Territory Plan is only available as a PDF document. We will ensure that the Territory Plan is available on a site that is easy to navigate, with hyperlinks. 

3.  A Liberal Government will ensure that meaningful consultation takes place before all new planning legislation is introduced. In contrast to the Labor–Green Government, industry and community groups will be aware of all new legislation before introduction rather than after. There will be opportunities for stakeholders to comment and suggest amendments early in the process so that they are not surprised at the last minute. This will also help community and industry organisations to inform and educate their members about proposals. 

4.  If elected, a Canberra Liberals Government would reform the Land Development Agency (LDA). The LDA was originally established to assist with the bringing of land to market. Instead, the depth and breadth of the LDA’s responsibilities has expanded considerably and the Government is frequently over-stepping its role in a competitive market. Further to this, the Government’s development and approval of the Territory Plan and LDA’s role represents a significant conflict of interest and restricts the Government’s and the community’s ability to scrutinise the delivery of projects. 

5.  The Canberra Liberals will ensure that there is a steady supply of land brought to market. There should always be land available for purchase ‘off the shelf’. 

6.  The Canberra Liberals will better define the position of the Government Architect, including the role the Architect plays in the planning of estates, significant precincts and the City’s governing planning principles. The definition will be developed by a review that will consider the best way to provide administrative support to the Architect and make the Architect’s office genuinely beneficial to the community. 

7.  A Liberal Government will hold design competitions each year. The competitions will be for projects of varying scope and size. There is potential to have some competitions that are specifically targeted to young architects. The competitions will deliberately limit the detail and length of submissions so that participants are not deterred by the process and are not compelled to contribute exorbitant time and resources into the process. 

5

8.  A Liberal Government will support a biennial Canberra Planning Summit. The Summit will be an opportunity for planners to gather in Canberra to share ideas and learn from the experience of experts. The first Summit will be held in 2017. 

9.  To ensure that projects are of the highest quality and appropriately selected, a Liberal Government will establish an Engineers’ Panel. The panel will consist of engineers with different expertise and experiences who will be consulted on major projects and work with the Government in the development of the Infrastructure Plan. Members of the panel will be appointed as board members, rather than as full time staff. 

10. A Liberal Government will establish the position of Chief Engineer. Initially, the Chief Engineer will be the chair of the Engineers’ Panel. The Government will work with stakeholders to develop the role and determine the appropriate resourcing of the position. 

11. A Liberal Government will seek to employ more engineers so that engineering advice is available for all infrastructure projects from the earliest design stages. Employment and retention of engineers will be encouraged through career development programs as well as graduate opportunities. 

12. A Liberal Government will add to the register of building licences, the projects that have been constructed under each licence. This searchable register will give the community a better understanding of the history of licence holders. 

13. The Canberra Liberals will work in conjunction with the Owners Corporation Network to deliver training to members of bodies corporate. 

14. The Canberra Liberals will require site visits by Planning Directorate officials to be undertaken before certificates of occupancy are issued to large multi-unit sites. 

15. For major construction projects, a Liberal Government will seek to establish a pre-development application meeting with the relevant stakeholders, including the Planning Directorate, ICON Water, TAMS (now Transport Canberra and City Services), the developer, architect, builder, engineers and other relevant stakeholders. The meeting will help all stakeholders understand the challenges, compliance and building quality issues. 

16. The Canberra Liberals will make changes to the lease variation processes and the RZ2 zone to make small RZ2 developments viable and preferable to large ones. This change will include protections for neighbours regarding privacy, traffic impacts and urban character. 

17. The Canberra Liberals will undertake a broad consultation process to develop a set of rules to allow appropriate dual occupancy developments in Canberra. The rules may initially permit further dual occupancies on corner blocks of a certain

6

size where the impact on neighbours is minimal. The rules will be based on planning principles in consultation with the community. 

18. A Liberal Government will conduct a review of the issues facing duplex owners. The review will consider current regulations as well as the situation in other jurisdictions. The review will recommend changes to make it simpler for owners to renovate or substantially alter their properties while making it clear who is responsible for remedial action. The new rules will also protect owners from being surprised by work which may impact their duplex or being unable to raise objections. The new rules will ensure that neighbours are consulted and appropriate mediation is available in cases where neighbours are unable to agree. 

19. A Liberal Government will overhaul the current solar access rules. The new system will be developed in consultation with industry and the community with a view to avoid the negative outcomes that have resulted from the existing solar access rules. 

20. The Canberra Liberals will place a limit on the amount of time shipping containers can be in the front yard of properties. Any time in excess of this period will be subject to an approval process. 

21. To improve Government transparency, a Liberal Government will provide planning data to the public. The data will be easily accessible and available in a format that allows it to be analysed by the community. Providing planning data will ensure that the community is aware of the trends in planning and can provide feedback. 

22. A Liberal Government will develop a Planning Directorate App or mobile site. The App will encourage community participation in planning decisions including through a feedback function for development application (DA) consultations. As part of this initiative, a Liberal Government will also ensure that it is easy to find new development applications as they are notified rather than having to search through the entire list of DAs. 

23. A Liberal Government will undertake a review of all fees and charges that impact on the construction industry. The review will be charged with determining the impact of the fees and charges on development. The review will also report on ways to increase their effectiveness in encouraging innovation and whether a change to the structure of fees will support better building outcomes. 

24. The Canberra Liberals will develop an Infrastructure Plan for Canberra’s future growth. The document will include residential areas, transport connections, areas of densification and employment. 

25. A Canberra Liberals Government will remove the lease variation charge in the city and town centres. A requirement of the lease variation charge waiver will be the need to start and complete the construction or repurposing in a defined timeframe. 

7

26. The Canberra Liberals will ensure that all town centres and other areas of high density living have access to high quality irrigated green space. 

27. The Canberra Liberals will establish a committee of stakeholders, including Canberra CBD Ltd, the Cultural Facilities Corporation, and others, to develop an indicative plan for the precinct surrounding the Canberra Theatre. 

28. The Canberra Liberals will make land available in future estates, and in existing suburbs (where possible), for various faith and cultural organisations. 

29. The Canberra Liberals’ integrated bus network will aim to offer all Canberrans the option of travelling from their suburb to the City in less than 30 minutes, even during peak hours. 

8

INTEGRITY

There is a lack of integrity in our planning system. The frequent changes to zoning and complexity in the system have given rise to an increasing role for lobbyists and consultants to help guide projects through the Directorate and Ministers’ offices. This is not indicative of a healthy planning system. The Canberra Liberals’ policies will bring certainty and clarity back to planning in Canberra and will therefore diminish the need for lobbying.

The Government’s game-playing with proposals in Yarralumla, Red Hill and other areas has led to a rising scepticism about the intentions of the Government and the role of lobbyists. Canberrans are also tired of the Government selling land at inflated prices but failing to invest in adequate infrastructure.

ComplexityoftheTerritoryPlan

The Territory Plan is a key policy document for planning in the ACT. All planning decisions in the ACT must be consistent with both the Plan and the National Capital Plan. The Territory Plan is used to manage development, assess development applications, guide the development of new estate areas and manage the use of public land. It is the ultimate document when it comes to planning decisions.

At almost 2500 pages, the Plan is an unnecessarily complicated and lengthy document. Planning requirements are also contained in the Planning and Development Act, the Building Code and other associated documents. While large documents are sometimes required, the purpose of a planning document should be to set the principles to be followed. Unfortunately, the current Plan is so complicated that it is practically indecipherable to builders, architects and interested individuals.

Over the years the ACT Planning code has expanded like an ex-rugby player on chocolate cake.i

Given the length and complexity of the Plan, all the knowledge and power in planning is concentrated in the Planning Directorate. This leads to unacceptable situations where proponents may not have the knowledge to ensure that their projects are approved.

The current Territory Plan is so large and complicated that it is incomprehensible. It has continued to grow as the Government increases regulations and red-tape to the point where it is almost impossible to comply with its requirements.

At present, neither proponents, neighbours, professionals nor planning assessors are served well by the cumbersome document. The incomprehensibility of the document serves as a stumbling block to community engagement and active citizenship as there are very few who have the confidence and capability to navigate the system.

It is time for a comprehensive review of the Territory Plan. This review should determine areas of the plan that can be simplified or even removed. Restrictions that discourage

9

innovation should be removed. Regulations that are so complicated that they delay the approval process should also be removed.

1. A Liberal Government will ensure that an independent comprehensive review of the Territory Plan is commissioned. The review will cover the Territory Plan and all other planning legislation. The review will be completed in 2017.

2. A Liberal Government will ensure that the Territory Plan is available in a more electronically-accessible format. The current Territory Plan is only available as a PDF document. We will ensure that the Territory Plan is available on a site that is easy to navigate, with hyperlinks.

Consultationandlegislation

Changes to planning legislation can be complicated and have a significant impact on the industry even if they appear to be minor. For this reason, it is important that the Government consults with the industry and the wider community before changes are made. Trying to sneak changes through without proper consultation demonstrates that the Government is not transparent and the community struggles to trust it.

Example: Project Facilitation Bill

One notable example of the Government not consulting on changes in planning policy is the Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill 2014. This Bill was introduced without any consultation with stakeholders. It represented a major change in policy and gave significant powers to the responsible Minister to overrule decisions. The Government described the Bill as being designed to support investment in the Territory. However, before its introduction not one organisation intending to work with the new provisions was actually consulted.

After the Canberra Liberals alerted the community to the serious nature of the Bill, community members raised major concerns. The Government set up an inquiry but only gave the Committee one month to complete it which was not adequate time for a genuine inquiry. Despite the short timeframe, those who contributed to the inquiry overwhelmingly rejected the Bill. The Government was determined to proceed with the Bill but was eventually forced to back down and withdraw it.

Incidents such as this remove community confidence in the planning system. The potential for the Government to change the rules without any consultation is worrying. It is difficult for the community to have faith in the system if it appears open to Government manipulation.

Example: University of Canberra Bill

10

The University of Canberra Amendment Bill 2015 was passed by the Government in March 2015. This Bill significantly altered the functions of the University to allow it to ‘commercially exploit or develop’ university property and provided the authority for the University to enter into contracts for this purpose. The Bill was promoted as a way for the University to secure its future in a competitive market. However, it is really a way for the Government to exclude the University from the normal planning processes. At the time this Bill was passed, details about what it would be used for were not available. Instead of being upfront about plans for the University, the Government told the Canberra Liberals that this was irrelevant.

The fact that the Government finds it necessary to introduce legislation to bypass the normal planning processes indicates that there is a problem with inflexibility in the planning system. When the Government finds it too complicated to work within the system as it stands, its first reaction is to bypass the system. A more prudent course of action would surely be to consider ways to simplify the regulatory process so that all users can benefit from fewer restrictions.

Example: Capital Metro Bill

The Government has failed to consult properly when it comes to the Capital Metro Light Rail Project. Whilst the Government enjoys promoting Capital Metro, often through expensive and unnecessary novelty items and events, the Government is not listening to the community on Light Rail. This Government will push ahead with Light Rail, no matter what the community thinks.

This was on stark display when the Government introduced and passed the Planning and Development (Capital Metro) Legislation Amendment Bill. This Bill was introduced on the last scheduled sitting day of 2014 (27 November 2014) and was intended to be debated and passed on the first scheduled sitting day of 2015 (10 February 2015). During this period, the Government did not notify any community council of the proposed Bill. There was no consultation with the community. Now enacted, this Bill allows the Government to make planning decisions that are almost impossible to be reviewed, and trims down community consultation through the relevant Legislative Assembly Committee process. Other changes effected by the Bill are that the advice of relevant Government entities, such as the Conservator of Flora and Fauna and the Heritage Council, can be disregarded. Development Applications relating to Light Rail have also been simplified by requiring less documentation.

11

3. A Liberal Government will ensure that meaningful consultation takes place before all new planning legislation is introduced. In contrast to the Labor–Green Government, industry and community groups will be aware of all new legislation before introduction rather than after. There will be opportunities for stakeholders to comment and suggest amendments early in the process so that they are not surprised at the last minute. This will also help community and industry organisations to inform and educate their members about proposals.

TheGardenCity

Canberra has a unique feature and comparative advantage: the garden city. Whilst the idea of suburbia has ebbed and flowed in public opinion amongst planners, there is no doubt that Canberra’s rolling suburbs linked by functional arterial roads and nestled in parks and reserves makes for a peaceful lifestyle.

Although some would rather we abandon greenfield development and solely focus on increasing densities, the Canberra Liberals strongly believe that future generations of Canberrans should be able to benefit from the character of our suburbs formed by the notion of the garden city.

Canberra is synonymous with gardens and families. All Canberrans would be familiar with the phrase said time and time again by residents and former residents of all ages: Canberra is a great place for families. The Canberra Liberals cherish this feature and want to do all we can to ensure that Canberra continues to be a place that is inviting for people to raise children in the peace of the garden city.

… the primary vistas are strongly reminiscent of the beautiful renditions of the garden city as captured in the enduring city competition artworks of Marion Mahony. Griffin’s plan continues to provide the backbone and compositional canvas for urban planning and design in Canberra. A revival of interest in the Griffin legacy coincides with new urbanism, city revitalization and a desire to preserve the core character of our cities globally, while addressing the challenges of increasing density, congestion, sustainable resource management and global competition.ii

There is and always will be a need for higher density precincts and our planning system must accommodate such developments. However, we can have higher density areas without compromising on the garden city. Our planning system must truly target areas where we want growth and where appropriate services can be delivered. We must not place communities, builders and developers in situations where inappropriately-sized developments are squeezed onto small and quiet residential blocks.

Higher density precincts must be planned properly with appropriate housing, social, cultural and environmental infrastructure to suit such living. We must ensure that the city, town centres and other high density areas are appropriately geared to support these

12

lifestyles, including the provision of green space and transport links. The Canberra Liberals will prioritise the City, Gungahlin, Belconnen, Woden and Tuggeranong Town Centres as obvious places for higher density living. We will also ensure that residents of these locations have access to recreational and environmental facilities, such as parks and open spaces.

LandDevelopmentAuthority

Over time, the role of the Land Development Agency (LDA) in development has increased. In five of the last seven years, the LDA has developed close to half of all land brought to market. This indicates a serious problem in the market. It is not the role of the Government to compete with the private sector in development. The Government often has an unfair advantage when compared to private developers. It is also not the Government’s role to be interfering in the property market in this way.

For too long the LDA has been driving the Government. The agency is conflicted by its mandate to deliver affordable housing and its responsibility to deliver a dividend. Further to this, the LDA has engaged in numerous transactions that have been the subject of investigation by the Auditor-General. One notable example was the purchase of City block 24 section 65. The land adjacent to Glebe Park did not allow residential use in the lease. In fact, regarding this block, Minister Simon Corbell said in 2011:

The government will be making it very clear and have already made it very clear to the leaseholder that we expect that approval to be acted upon, that we expect those works to be undertaken. We will follow that through with the usual compliance activity and options that are available under the relevant planning legislation.iii

However, the amount paid was based on a valuation based on apartments being constructed on the site. Under the Planning and Development Act 2007 the LDA has its authority. However, on 14 June 2014, the Minister for Economic Development, Mr Andrew Barr, issued a notifiable instrument stating:

I direct the Land Development Agency to act in accordance with the principles of the Land Development Agency—Land Acquisition Policy Framework, attached as a Schedule to this Instrument, when exercising the Agency’s functions under the Planning and Development Act 1997.

It goes on. Paragraph 1.1 in the schedule says:

The Land Acquisition Policy Framework provides the principles that are to govern the exercise of the Land Development Agency … functions under the Planning and Development Act 1997. The framework also supports the ACT Government’s Statement of Governance Arrangements for the Land Development Agency.iv

Paragraph 2.1 states:

13

All proposed acquisitions are to be assessed against the principles and associated tests provided in this Land Acquisition Policy Framework. All tests must be followed for an acquisition.

Paragraph 2.2.1 states:

The following thresholds and decision makers apply to all LDA land acquisitions: a. below $5 million—agreement by the LDA Board with advice to the Minister for Economic Development or the Minister responsible for administering Chapter 4 of the Planning and Development Act 1997…

The planning and development land acquisition policy framework direction of 2014 is the LDA’s guiding procurement document. However, it seems the LDA disregarded this policy, and the LDA established a way to determine when this direction from the minister applies and when it does not. Over a year after the direction was issued, the LDA board, on 27 August 2015, endorsed a new policy or guideline, which somehow overrides the minister’s direction, which was notified to the Assembly. Conveniently, the acquisition of City block 24 section 65 occurred a couple of weeks later. However, there were at least two other acquisitions that seemingly did not comply with this direction.v

However, in September and November of 2015, after the acquisition had been made, an LDA official and the Chief Minister were claiming that the block was purchased by strategic acquisition and therefore in accordance with the direction that Mr Barr had issued. However, another LDA official then changed the explanation and said it was a project-based acquisition.

The Land Acquisition Policy Framework states that the LDA board must approve acquisitions under $5 million, but that seems to have been ignored.

4. If elected, a Canberra Liberals Government would reform the Land Development Agency (LDA). The LDA was originally established to assist with the bringing of land to market. Instead, the depth and breadth of the LDA’s responsibilities has expanded considerably and the Government is frequently over-stepping its role in a competitive market. Further to this, the Government’s development and approval of the Territory Plan and LDA’s role represents a significant conflict of interest and restricts the Government’s and the community’s ability to scrutinise the delivery of projects.

Landsupply

The ACT Government has a very poor record when it comes to housing affordability. The current affordable housing situation is so bad that former Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said that ‘[It] is insulting in the extreme to suggest to all those families [with an income of under $100,000] that housing in Canberra is affordable’.vi

14

Land in Throsby, which was advertised as affordable, sold for an average of $1142 per square metre in June 2016.vii Land in the 2014 Lawson release was sold for an average of $900 a square metre. The price of fully serviced blocks in estates just across the border in NSW, such as Googong, is less than $500 per square metre.

By limiting the supply of land in the Territory, the Government has been able to drive up prices and raise extra revenue. However, this has also made housing extremely unaffordable.

The Government has been setting targets for land release since 2004 but the targets have rarely been met and the promised land bank has not eventuated. The Government seems to be more interested in making money from the sale of land than addressing the concerns about the lack of affordable housing.

The type of land that the Government releases is not helping with housing affordability. The majority of blocks it plans to release between 2015 and 2019 are for townhouses or apartments. There are only 4900 blocks planned for detached houses, less than 30 percent of the total number of sites. Although apartments may be affordable, not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Former Chief Minister Jon Stanhope set up the Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2007. It was designed to make more affordable housing in the price range of $200,000 to $300,000 (2007 prices) available but as Mr Stanhope explained, ‘The Plan did not presuppose that this requirement would be met by providing units within this price range’.viii The Government cannot say that it is making housing affordable when it is restricting the number of blocks for detached houses and pushing up the price of land.

15

Land supply in the ACT

Although the Government should be careful not to flood the market with new land, the current system in which the supply of land is dramatically less than the demand is not helping with affordability. Dr Khalid Ahmed, a former deputy Under-Treasurer, has made it clear that he believes the Government is to blame for the housing affordability problem in the ACT: ‘Affordability shouldn't be as big a problem as it is in Canberra because we have absolute control over the land supply. If you have got the policy settings right, the rest will take care of itself. If you supply enough the prices will stabilise’.ix

There have been cases where land has been offered for private development but there has been no significant interest in the land. This indicates that the land is not attractive for development in the way that the Government is offering it. The Government should ensure that the land it is offering for development represents a good investment opportunity and is the type of land that the community is demanding. The LDA should not be offering unprofitable or unsellable land to the market.

The type of land available to the market is also an important consideration. It is not feasible to offer large parcels of land for apartments when the demand for blocks with free-standing houses remains high. Ron Bell from the Real Estate Institute of the ACT stated, ‘We simply don’t have enough stock to provide choices for people. The drip feeding of land going on gives you the impression it’s a revenue chase’.x

16

Land developed by the LDA is frequently sold for significantly more than the economic value of the land. For example, in 2014 purchasers of land in Lawson paid an average of $900 per square metre when the actual economic value was estimated to be closer to $610.xi The price of land in Throsby was also excessive, with the majority of blocks costing over $400,000.xii This was land that the Government advertised as being suitable for affordable housing. Land that is being released by the Government should not be the most expensive land; if anything, it should be a cheaper option than privately developed land.

The Government’s control over the supply of land is a major factor in the lack of affordable housing in Canberra.

5. The Canberra Liberals will ensure that there is a steady supply of land brought to market. There should always be land available for purchase ‘off the shelf’.

QUALITY

Advice,DesignandExpertise

Canberra has a proud heritage of first class engineering. However, in recent years, Governments across Australia have suffered an in-house engineering ‘brain drain’. The Canberra Liberals want to reverse this trend. Whilst there will always be a need for external contractors to help deliver projects, there is a need for internal capability to undertake needs analysis, scope works, and design and manage contracts. Such expertise will lead to better procurement and better outcomes.

The Canberra Liberals want to see more innovation in planning and design. Whilst the simplification of the Territory Plan will assist, there are additional proactive steps that can be taken to encourage such creativity. Canberra has a tremendous array of planning, engineering and architectural expertise that we should do a better job at harnessing.

The ACT has a Government Architect but the role is poorly defined. As a planned city, people would expect that Canberra would have a more visible and active Government Architect. The Government Architect may be involved in Government projects. The ACT can learn from other jurisdictions, such as Victoria, about how to better utilise such a position.xiii

17

6. The Canberra Liberals will better define the position of the Government Architect, including the role the Architect plays in the planning of estates, significant precincts and the City’s governing planning principles. The definition will be developed by a review that will consider the best way to provide administrative support to the Architect and make the Architect’s office genuinely beneficial to the community.

7. A Liberal Government will hold design competitions each year. The competitions will be for projects of varying scope and size. There is potential to have some competitions that are specifically targeted to young architects. The competitions will deliberately limit the detail and length of submissions so that participants are not deterred by the process and are not compelled to contribute exorbitant time and resources into the process.

8. A Liberal Government will support a biennial Canberra Planning Summit. The Summit will be an opportunity for planners to gather in Canberra to share ideas and learn from the experience of experts. The first Summit will be held in 2017.

9. To ensure that projects are of the highest quality and appropriately selected, a Liberal Government will establish an Engineers’ Panel. The panel will consist of engineers with different expertise and experiences who will be consulted on major projects and work with the Government in the development of the Infrastructure Plan. Members of the panel will be appointed as board members, rather than as full time staff.

10. A Liberal Government will establish the position of Chief Engineer. Initially, the Chief Engineer will be the chair of the Engineers’ Panel. The Government will work with stakeholders to develop the role and determine the appropriate resourcing of the position.

11. A Liberal Government will seek to employ more engineers so that engineering advice is available for all infrastructure projects from the earliest design stages. Employment and retention of engineers will be encouraged through career development programs as well as graduate opportunities.

Buildingquality

The construction of high quality buildings for a good price and in a reasonable time is always a complicated process. In an industry that is highly regulated, it is tempting for builders to cut corners in an attempt to increase the profit from projects. However, in the long run, cutting costs can also be costly for the builder. Remediation costs can be more

18

expensive than it would have been to build correctly and the impact of slurs on the reputation of the industry is significant. Owners and occupiers are also penalised both financially and in the time taken to investigate, complete and sign off on remedial work; the cost of remedial work is high for all parties. The assumption that poor quality work can be rectified if someone complains is not the right attitude. High quality work should be encouraged and rewarded.

12. A Liberal Government will add to the register of building licences an inventory of projects that have been constructed under each licence. This searchable register will give the community a better understanding of the history of licence holders.

13. The Canberra Liberals will work in conjunction with the Owners Corporation Network to deliver training to members of bodies corporate.

14. The Canberra Liberals will require site visits by Planning Directorate officials to be undertaken before certificates of occupancy are issued to large multi-unit sites.

15. For major construction projects, a Liberal Government will seek to establish a pre-development application meeting with the relevant stakeholders, including the Planning Directorate, ICON Water, TAMS (now Transport Canberra and City Services), the developer, architect, builder, engineers and other relevant stakeholders. The meeting will help all stakeholders understand the challenges, compliance and building quality issues.

RZ2

There have been some development in RZ2 areas that have tainted the level of community acceptance of increased density in core areas. The Canberra Liberals believe that there is merit in having more housing stock available within easy walking distance of local centres. However, these developments need to be respectful of the neighbouring properties. At present, small redevelopments, such as several units or townhouses on large blocks in RZ2 are often uneconomic.xiv In many instances, the only developments that stack-up financially are significantly larger unit developments, which often also attract community opposition.

The Canberra Liberals recognise that there is an on-going demand for unit and town house developments and many people would like the opportunity to purchase such properties in the same community where they have previously lived.

19

16. The Canberra Liberals will make changes to the lease variation processes and the RZ2 zone to make small RZ2 developments viable and preferable to large ones. This change will include protections for neighbours regarding privacy, traffic impacts and urban character.

DualOccupancies

The Canberra Liberals believe that there is a role for dual occupancy developments. However, the Government’s ad hoc decision to allow unit-titled dual occupancies through the Mr Fluffy variation was not the right way to address the issue. A witness to the Assembly’s Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory And Municipal Services described it as follows:

We believe DV 343 is what we call “unplanning” and unfair. We find that it is inconsistent with planning zones. DV 343 targets random blocks. It was not planned or coordinated. You might as well just throw darts at a map of Canberra, and that is no way to plan a city, we feel. Allowing greater development on random RZ1 blocks undermines the integrity of the whole planning system. Basic common sense tells us that there should not be different rules for blocks within the same zone. The existing RZ1 zone permissions should be preserved. Houses are grouped together in specific zones for a reason, and it should remain that way.xv

17. The Canberra Liberals will undertake a broad consultation process to develop a set of rules to allow appropriate dual occupancy developments in Canberra. The rules may initially permit further dual occupancies on corner blocks of a certain size where the impact on neighbours is minimal. The rules will be based on planning principles in consultation with the community.

Duplexissues

Duplexes are common in older suburbs in Canberra. As these residences age, renovation or replacement becomes necessary. In most cases, it is possible for neighbours to come to an arrangement to manage works and minimise disruption. However, in some cases, serious neighbourhood disputes arise, such as where one side of a duplex has been demolished without the owners of the other side being notified resulting in serious damaging being caused to the remaining property while demolition or construction is taking place. Disagreements over responsibility for the shared wall may arise. There may also be confusion over the location of the boundary, particularly when one side has been demolished and replaced with a free-standing dwelling away from the boundary.

The Government has made legislative changes to clarify issues relating to duplexes. However, these issues are likely to become more common as the city ages.

20

18. A Liberal Government will conduct a review of the issues facing duplex owners. The review will consider current regulations as well as the situation in other jurisdictions. The review will recommend changes to make it simpler for owners to renovate or substantially alter their properties while making it clear who is responsible for remedial action. The new rules will also protect owners from being surprised by work which may impact their duplex or being unable to raise objections. The new rules will ensure that neighbours are consulted and appropriate mediation is available in cases where neighbours are unable to agree.

Variation306

The ACT Labor Government brought in Variation 306 in 2013. This Variation made significant changes to the solar access provisions as well as boundary setback provisions and was widely condemned before it was introduced. The Institute of Architects, Institute of Landscape Architects, Master Builders, HIA, Property Council, Planning Institute and others all warned that the Variation was unworkable and would lead to worse outcomes. The Government stubbornly proceeded with the changes and over time it has been forced to roll back provisions through amending legislation.

The Master Builders Association of the ACT described the Variation as follows:

Draft Variation 306 is a recent example of a failure by Government to understand the implications of a positive objective ill-framed in legislation and almost guaranteed to fail … the draft variation hampered the delivery of excellent strategic policy objectives for urban infill, limited the potential for contemporary and diverse dwellings through the replacement dwelling rule and bred ill feeling and lack of confidence.xvi

The act of city making requires imagination, boldness and innovation and the creation of an environment that is robust and enabling of change over time … DV306 fails the test of proposing changes to our planning regulations that either create a simple, faster, more effective planning regime or create conditions that demonstrably support high quality sustainable development of the city.xvii

In a submission to the Planning Committee inquiry into DV 306, the MBA stated:

It is also likely that DV306, if implemented in its current form, with proposed solar access provisions, will create an environment of uncertainty. It is also quite likely that a large percentage of applications that were previously dealt with through the Exempt Development process in RZ2, will now end up in Merit Track due to the difficulty of satisfying the building envelope criteria now proposed in DV306.xviii

5AAP, a group of Canberra-based architectural practices stated:

21

DV306 seems to be discouraging urban infill and densification of core areas in favour of Greenfield sites – we do not believe this is a sustainable or responsible outcome for Canberra.

We believe that in trying to be more prescriptive on a range of issues, DV 306 is unnecessarily complicating the territory plan and indeed making it a much longer document.xix

As a result of the rules, many houses in new suburbs have been lowered into the earth through significant excavation in order to minimise the over shadowing. Houses have also been positioned to the northern edge of blocks in order to contain as much of the overshadowing in yards. This has resulted in many blocks having outdoor living spaces facing south.

Further to this, the rules have resulted in estate plans being sub-optimally designed. In Moncrieff, hundreds of blocks have been designed in a north–south position in order to contain shadows at the front or rear of the block. This will result in hundreds of houses with lower energy efficiency and poor solar access due to living areas facing east and west.

19. A Liberal Government will overhaul the current solar access rules. The new system will be developed in consultation with industry and the community with a view to avoid the negative outcomes that have resulted from the existing solar access rules.

ShippingContainers

The Canberra Liberals recognise the growing trend with the use of shipping containers for storage and adaptive reuse. However, despite their intended use as a reliable and standardised moveable structure, many are becoming permanent or-semi-permanent structures.

20. The Canberra Liberals will place a limit on the amount of time shipping containers can be in the front yard of properties. Any time in excess of this period will be subject to an approval process.

SIMPLICITY

PlanningDirectorate

The current situation where the ACT Chief Planner is also the head of the Planning Directorate is unacceptable.

22

The Chief Planner is supposed to be making planning decisions based on the planning outcomes, not the Government’s agenda. The Chief Planner should be able to make these decisions free from politics and the pressures that face the head of a Government Directorate. The Chief Planner should be able to devote their time to making impartial decisions rather than having to balance the competing interests of other parts of the Directorate.

The Labor Party promised to establish an independent Planning Authority with an independent Chief Planner in 2001. This promise was a good initiative. The Labor Party’s own policy platform pointed out the importance of a Chief Planner who could make decisions without being subject to the politics of the Government.

Labor’s aim is [to] establish a Planning Authority at arm’s length from Government, capable of advocating a long term, strategic approach to planning for Canberra free from the day to day political whims of the Government.xx

However, this aim has not been achieved. In fact, the Government has now taken over planning even further.

The long running Giralang shops development debacle has been a particularly obvious example of Government interference in planning. The situation became so serious that in May 2010 the Chief Planning Executive wrote a strongly worded letter to the Minister for Planning to raise serious concerns about Government interference.

As a result of the Minister for Land and Property Service’s letter to you, and the other interferences from the DLAPS, it is my view as the statutory office bearer that this process is now so compromised that the prospect of it being taken over by the Government needs to be raised …

You will understand that I find this level of interference, which in the case of the DLAPS is occurring on an ever more frequent basis, although not always as obviously as in this case, has the potential to make the role of Planning Directorate as a statutory authority for a range of tasks increasingly difficult and puts the Government at risk.xxi

The Chief Planning Executive was right to be concerned about the risk to impartiality. The Government has shown a total disregard for proper planning outcomes in recent times and has allowed planning to become highly politicised.

Lackofconsultation

Community consultation on planning legislation and major projects should be an important part of the Government’s activities. However, the ACT Labor Government has continually failed to properly consult with the community. Often the extent of the Government’s consultation is to produce some artist’s impressions, run a survey and then proceed with what it had originally decided to do.

23

In the case of planning legislation, there have been several instances where the Government has not informed major stakeholders about significant policy changes. It has been left to the Canberra Liberals to inform the community about what changes the Government is making. In many of these cases, the community has been unhappy about the changes. The Government has tried to avoid scrutiny by pushing changes through before the community is aware; this is not the way to consult with the community.

Community councils and planning experts often understand the consequences of the changes better than the Government does. Choosing to bypass them is bad government.

Example: Canberra Brickworks Redevelopment

Plans for redevelopment at the Canberra Brickworks site have been discussed on and off since the 1970s. The current ACT Labor Government has submitted several proposals for community consultation.

The first proposal was released in 2010 and included plans for a significant number of residential dwellings. However, it did not have a clear plan to minimise the impact of increased traffic on the existing suburb. Residents and community groups raised concerns about the proposed changes to the roads around the development as well as the lack of funds being set aside to restore or make safe the brickworks.

A second proposal was released in 2013. This proposal disregarded much of the community feedback from the previous proposal. It increased the density and number of dwellings in the development, did not address traffic implications of the development, and did not have a clear strategy for integrating the historic brickworks into the new development. Residents and community groups raised serious concerns with the 2013 proposal.

A third proposal was released in 2015. The proposal increased the density of the development even further and interfered with the entrance to Government House and roads surrounding the development site.

Throughout the consultation periods for these proposals, members of the community and professional bodies raised concerns and made suggestions to improve the proposals. However, the LDA seemingly ignored these ideas and continued to propose unsatisfactory plans for the area.

Finally, in September 2015 the Government released a new proposal for the Brickworks site. The proposal covered a significantly smaller area and removed high rise apartments from the plan. The Government’s proposal was the same as the proposal put forward by the Canberra Liberals in April 2015.

Example: Brumbies’ site

The Standing Committee on Planning, Public Works and Territory and Municipal Services held an inquiry into the Territory Plan Variation associated with the former Brumbies’ site in Griffith. At the same time as the Inquiry, an application to deconcessionalise the lease was being progressed without

24

the Committee being informed. The Committee commented on the process and expressed its view that such practices diminished community confidence in the planning system:

'The Committee accepts that the deconcessionalisation of the lease for Section 42, Block 15, Griffith is a separate process to that to vary the Territory Plan and reiterates (as stated in paragraph 3.22) that it was disappointed to find that the deconcessionalisation process was progressing without Planning Directorate providing information to the Committee.

The Committee is of the view that without increased transparency and openness in such processes, the community, the Committee and the Assembly will find it difficult to have confidence in the planning system. The Committee believes that any lack of trust in planning will impact on other public processes and institutions. The Committee concludes that the deconcessionalisation process needs reform.’

The Government’s failure to consult was particularly obvious when it sought to pass the Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill 2014 without any stakeholder consultation. Many community councils and other stakeholders were entirely unaware of the legislation before it was brought to their attention by the Canberra Liberals. The Weston Creek Community Council described the process as being carried out in ‘almost obscene haste’:

I am not a planning expert, but I have concerns that relate to process in all of this. I would say that the bill has been brought in with what I would term almost obscene haste. There has been no effective consultation on it. I think this hearing has been an afterthought after public criticism was raised by the community through a number of associations.xxii

The Belconnen Community Council also noted that they had not been given sufficient time to consider the legislation:

… as an organisation, we found we did not have the time to discuss as a group all the issues listed here. We have raised them as concerns, and the reason we have not done something more comprehensive stems back to the discussion with the previous speakers about the timing of the presentation of the bill and the fact that initially it was intended to pass the bill without actually having any community consultation. It was not until 8 April I think when we were sent papers for the next day’s planning and development forum. We had a very brief overview presentation on the afternoon of 9 April in relation to what the bill was about.xxiii

Case study: Council of the City of Gold Coastxxiv

The City of Gold Coast Council provides information about Development Applications on its website. Not only does it provide the details of applications for comment, it also provides the details of applications that have been decided. This latter is particularly important because nearby residents are often unsure what has happened to the application after consultation has taken place.

25

The website allows users to undertake property related development enquiries as well as track the progress of development applications through the approval process. This information can also be used to determine the number of approvals and the time taken to make a decision.

21. To improve Government transparency, a Liberal Government will provide planning data to the public. The data will be easily accessible and available in a format that allows it to be analysed by the community. Providing planning data will ensure that the community is aware of the trends in planning and can provide feedback.

22. A Liberal Government will develop a Planning Directorate App or mobile site. The App will encourage community participation in planning decisions including through a feedback function for development application (DA) consultations. As part of this initiative, a Liberal Government will also ensure that it is easy to find new development applications as they are notified rather than having to search through the entire list of DAs.

Excessiveregulationandfees

The ACT planning system is characterised by excessive regulation. Red tape and unnecessary regulation make it difficult for the construction industry. Delays in the development process are common. These delays affect business and individuals who are at risk of losing money and not completing projects on time.

The excessive regulation is accompanied by prohibitive charges. These charges are holding up projects that would provide positive changes and investment in Canberra. Extension of time fees and the Lease Variation Charge are both portrayed as incentives to speed up development. However, the fees are so high that they are often preventing good projects from being built.

The Lease Variation Charge was specifically noted as a negative attribute of the ACT planning system in the Property Council’s 2015 Development Assessment Report Card:

The Lease Variation Charge (LVC) is seen as a financial risk for projects. The LVC is effectively a tax on urban renewal projects which works directly against Government policy that seeks to promote urban renewal. It is inconsistent with practice in all other jurisdictions and should be abandoned in its current form.xxv

26

23. A Liberal Government will undertake a review of all fees and charges that impact on the construction industry. The review will be charged with determining the impact of the fees and charges on development. The review will also report on ways to increase their effectiveness in encouraging innovation and whether a change to the structure of fees will support better building outcomes.

Governmentinterference

Planning in the ACT is suffering due to excessive Government interference. The Government has become too quick to take over projects that are not commercially viable. The Government has the advantage of avoiding much of the regulation that a private developer has to comply with. This gives the Government an unfair advantage and reduces competition in the property sector. Private builders are being pushed out of certain sectors.

It is disappointing that investors and builders are choosing to invest across the border in NSW rather than in the ACT and that Canberra residents are moving across the border in search of affordable housing. This decision reflects the unfavourable planning environment in the ACT. If the ACT wants to continue to grow, we cannot afford to have the best investors and developers move across the border. Residents from just across the border in NSW use ACT services and infrastructure but they do not pay taxes in the ACT.

The Government has also indicated that some of its public housing redevelopment projects will involve a majority of units being sold to the private market rather than being retained as public housing. This means that the Government is the developer and competing with the private sector to sell to the private market. It is very unfortunate that the ACT Government is happy to meddle in a competitive market at a time when the property sector is under pressure.

The Government has also interfered in planning through excessive use of the Planning Minister’s call-in powers. The call-in powers allow the Planning Minister to make a decision about a development application when it is particularly controversial or the planning authority has not come to a timely decision. Whilst the call-in powers were designed to be a last resort, the temptation is for the Planning Minister to invoke these powers every time a project is controversial or the community raises significant concerns. The increase in use of the call-in powers is a worrying trend and may lead to community cynicism about the planning process. If legitimate community concerns are ignored when a Minister decides to use call-in powers, the community starts to become disillusioned with the planning system.

27

GROWTHThe Canberra Liberals believe that there is a need to properly document the future of Canberra’s growth, with reference to the region. Canberra needs a masterplan plan that details the long-term growth of our city. The Stanhope Government sought to address this issue in 2004 with the Canberra Spatial Plan. However, very little has been published since that reports on the progress made and the direction we are heading.

24. The Canberra Liberals will develop an Infrastructure Plan for Canberra’s future growth. The document will include residential areas, transport connections, areas of densification and employment.

Towncentres

Canberra was designed around the town centres which are supposed to be places where residents can work, shop and socialise. Unfortunately, many of the town centres are struggling due to a lack of employment in the centres as well as a lack of investment in the facilities. It is unfortunate that many Canberrans choose to travel past their local town centres because they feel they do not provide the facilities that they want. An increase in residential development near some town centres is helping to create more vibrant centres. This should be replicated across the territory.

The town centres are a vital aspect of the design for Canberra. Walter Burley Griffin and other early planners intentionally avoided the usual design for a major city where employment and shopping facilities are concentrated in a central city area. The town centres did not just spring up. They were supposed to be the heart of the district and residents should be able to access all the facilities they regularly need at their local town centre.

Canberra’s design around the town centres is also a major factor in the minimal congestion which Canberra experiences. If people only need to travel to their local town centre for work, they do not clog up the roads into the city. It is unfortunate that employment is becoming concentrated in Civic as this is leading to congestion that might be avoided if major employment opportunities were spread across the town centres.

The National Capital Authority’s predecessor, the National Capital Development Commission, was well aware of the advantages of the town centre model for reducing traffic congestion and avoiding other inconveniences:

It is the Commission’s policy to encourage medium-density development in locations close to established facilities, such as shopping centres and public transport … Canberra’s Y-plan provides a framework for consolidation and intensification without the congestion, pollution, environmental degradation and inconvenience so often associated with the planning and development of urban areas.xxvi

28

25. A Canberra Liberals Government will remove the lease variation charge in the city and town centres. A requirement of the lease variation charge waiver will be the need to start and complete the construction or repurposing in a defined timeframe.

Greenspaceinhighdensityareas

The Canberra Liberals recognise that an increasing number of people are living in apartments and higher density developments. However, in line with the garden city principles, we believe that all Canberrans should have access to open spaces near where they live. Green spaces, including community gardens and open spaces, are important meeting places and bring the community together. A Liberal Government will ensure that all new developments continue to include designated areas of green spaces for recreation and socialising.

There are numerous health benefits associated with access to public open space and parks. Access to vegetated areas such as parks, open spaces, and playgrounds has been associated with better perceived general health, reduced stress levels, reduced depression and more.xxvii

Providing open spaces involves a cost to the developer because land used for open space could otherwise be used for more houses or units. However, the benefit to the community of open spaces is well recognised and developers should be encouraged to provide access to green space. It is likely that the increased amenity for access to green space will also be reflected in the sale price of properties, reducing the loss from not using this space for more development.

Parks are places of adventure and challenge, exercise, peace and quiet, recreation, gathering and relaxation. In them, we find a sense of enjoyment, strong community spirit and wonder in nature. Parks offer a range of recreation activities to bring families and friends together in appealing places.xxviii

26. The Canberra Liberals will ensure that all town centres and other areas of high density living have access to high quality irrigated green space.

TheCity

The centre of any city should be a hive of commercial, recreational and cultural activity. However, at present, the centre of Canberra has been treated as a poor cousin to other parts of the city. Whilst there are many new precincts such as Kingston Foreshore, New Acton and traditional locations such as Kingston and Manuka, Civic will always be an obvious location to congregate. As such, there is a need to ensure that the centre of Canberra is not neglected.

29

As was said in a Canberra Times opinion piece by Alistair Coe in September 2014:

In 2010, Jon Stanhope announced that City West would be the focus of redevelopment in the city through the ANU Exchange project. Separate from this, the Molonglo Group has created a superb precinct at Acton that demonstrates what can be achieved through entrepreneurialism. To the north, Braddon is quickly taking off as a sought-after area for entertainment and residences. The government has also announced ambitious and expensive plans for ‘City to the Lake’, to Civic’s south, and the government's redevelopment of ABC will pull the City East over Cooyong Street for the first time. So, in a city serving 400,000 people with several competing town centres, the CBD is being pulled to the north, south, east and west. With so much off-centre focus, it is no wonder that the heart of the city, City Walk and Garema Place, is not as good as it could be.

As flagged in 2014, the Canberra Liberals are open to considering the reactivation of City Walk, perhaps with the return of vehicles. The road could be a cobblestone or paved one-way road from the bus interchange to Ainslie Avenue or Petrie Plaza. The road could be open for taxis, goods vehicles and perhaps small buses during business hours, and general traffic at night. Such activity would help bring vibrancy and patronage to City Walk but be too crowded to entice rat-running. Of course, the road could easily be closed for the Multicultural Festival and other events.

The ACT Government has also gone as far as establishing a CBD levy for rate payers in the City and Braddon. The ACT Government states that ‘The City Centre Marketing and Improvements Levy (CCMIL) funds marketing and improvements in Canberra's City Centre’. Given that these rate payers already pay rates to the ACT Government and probably others fees and charges such as payroll tax and licences in addition to Commonwealth fees and charges, we must be careful that the levy is fair and used appropriately. Any levy must pay for services that go above and beyond the usual service delivery of Government.

For years, the Canberra Liberals have heard concerns from traders in the City about the difficulty of parking for their customers. The Canberra Liberals recognise that whilst public transport can and should be better, many Canberra will still depend on getting to the city via car. As such, we must ensure that there is adequate provision of parking in locations that are convenient. We must also acknowledge that most tourists arrive by car so there is a strong case for appropriate short and medium stay parking for visitors.

The Canberra Liberals want to see the City become a place where people want to congregate and a place that best represents Canberra to tourists. We want the City to be a place that is easy to access.

CitytotheLake

The Canberra Liberals do not support what the Government has proposed for the City to the Lake Development. Whilst the Party is not fundamentally opposed to development at

30

West Basin, we believe that we should be concentrating additional commercial and residential development in the existing city and town centre boundaries. Given the declining state of City Walk and Garema Place, what we need is a consolidation of the existing areas, not a further expansion of the City.

Regarding West Basin, in the short to medium term, the Canberra Liberals would welcome improvements to landscaping, the path network and perhaps additional amenities such as a café, but we do not think opening up another precinct is needed.

CanberraTheatreCentreandprecinct

For years, there has been talk about a new Canberra Theatre. If this is to progress, a new theatre must not be constructed or even planned in isolation. Given that theatres are central meeting points and iconic cultural institutions, the precinct of the current and future theatres must be considered carefully. In City Section 19, there currently exists the Canberra Theatre Centre, the Theo Notaras Centre, the Legislative Assembly and Civic Square. A new government office building is planned and there has been talk about hotels and even a Convention Centre on this Section. Therefore, the need to properly masterplan this section and the adjacent areas in order for the area to meet its potential is critical.

27. The Canberra Liberals will establish a committee of stakeholders, including Canberra CBD Ltd, the Cultural Facilities Corporation, and others, to develop an indicative plan for the precinct surrounding the Canberra Theatre.

Communityland

Community and non-urban land is provided for a range of community uses including aged care facilities, schools, childcare centres and churches. A lack of available community land is forcing community groups to purchase commercial land at high prices. In some cases, the community groups are unable to afford to purchase land at commercial rates and are forced to operate from rented accommodation that is less than ideal. Even when community land is available, there is usually very little choice and the community groups may feel pressured to accept land that is not appropriate for the intended use.

Community facilities provide a real benefit to the local community, often beyond the primary use of the buildings. Facilities such as schools and churches are often available for hire and use by other community groups and they provide a convenient place for locals to meet. This is particularly important in higher density areas.

31

The Canberra Liberals are regularly contacted by community groups looking for land. These groups may have waited years and when they are finally offered land, it is often inappropriate.

The Government does not keep any land exclusively for sale to community groups, meaning that when groups do ask for land, it is difficult for them to know what is available and what they may realistically ask for. Another problem caused by the lack of land exclusively for community use is that the land is often far from ready and the process of purchasing land takes a long time.

28. The Canberra Liberals will make land available in future estates, and in existing suburbs (where possible), for various faith and cultural organisations.

Transportintegration

As Canberra continues to grow, transport integration is becoming even more important. Planning is required so that transport systems are physically integrated and people can easily access different modes of transport close to where they live.

The ACT is spread over a large area so many people will travel long distances on a daily basis. This makes transport integration even more vital.

The ACT Government’s last attempt at transport planning, the Transport for Canberra plan released in March 2012, was a failure. A report by the Auditor-General in November 2015 found that many promises made by the government, including incorporating the Frequent Network into the Territory Plan, had not occurred. Furthermore, a Working Group designed to oversee the implementation of the Transport for Canberra plan was not meeting as required, and had been disbanded in December 2014. Problems also arose with lax, inaccurate and ambiguous reporting of the implementation of the plan.

As in the Canberra Transport Future for all Canberrans policy released by the Canberra Liberals early in 2016, the eight rapid bus routes and parkway express services will create a new level of connections in Canberra. Travel times across Canberra will be reduced by dispersing rapid buses on numerous major arterial roads rather than all travelling on the existing Blue Rapid spine. The Rapid routes identified will serve as the basis for future bus lane and priority measure investments.

29. The Canberra Liberals’ integrated bus network will aim to offer all Canberrans the option of travelling from their suburb to the City in less than 30 minutes, even during peak hours.

32

i Tony Trobe, http://www.theage.com.au/comment/acts-territory-plan-is-just-too-massive-to-be-of-any-use-20150615-gho5uv.html#ixzz3uQxMK6z5, accessed 5 September 2016.

ii Walter Burley Griffin Society, http://www.griffinsociety.org/Lives_and_Works/urban_planning.html, accessed 5 September 2016.

iii http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2011/week06/2258.htm, accessed 5 September 2016

iv http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2014-264/current/pdf/2014-264.pdf, accessed 5 September 2016

v http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/805723/No.-1-20.pdf, QON1

vi http://citynews.com.au/2015/stanhope-regrets-yes-the-shame-of-unaffordable-housing/, accessed 5 September 2016.

vii http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-editorial/industrys-warning-should-be-heeded-20160625-gprsiw.html, accessed 5 September 2016.

viii http://citynews.com.au/2015/stanhope-regrets-yes-the-shame-of-unaffordable-housing/, accessed 5 September 2016.

ix http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/answer-to-housing-crisis-lies-in-greater-land-release-former-treasury-official-20150524-gh8dsq.html, accessed 5 September 2016.

x http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/housing-affordability-in-canberra-is-high-with-prices-forced-up-by-mr-fluffy-owners-20150624-ghwrrp.html, accessed 5 September 2016.

xi http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/molonglo-and-lawson-land-overpriced-by-100000-or-more-former-treasury-official-20150529-ghchzf.html, accessed 5 September 2016.

xii http://www.lda.act.gov.au/uploads/ckfinder/files/pdf/2_Residential/Throsby/Public_Ballot_May2016/Throsby_Ballot_Sales_Brochure.pdf, accessed 5 September 2016.

xiii See: http://www.ovga.vic.gov.au/

xiv http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-developers-want-overhaul-of-act-planning-laws-20141015-10c7wr.html, accessed 5 September 2016

xv http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2013/comms/planning33a.pdf, accessed 5 September

xvi MBA Land and Planning Policy July 2014.

xvii Australian Institute of Architects – submission to DV306 Inquiry.

xviii MBA submission to DV306 Inquiry, http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/373610/09_Master_Builders_Asso_ACT.pdf, accessed 5 September2016.

33

xix 5AAP submission to DV306 Inquiry, http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/373586/21_5AAP.pdf, accessed 5 September2016.

xx ACT Labor, ‘Planning for People’, 2001.

xxi Chief Planning Executive letter to Minister for Planning 17 May 2010.

xxii Tom Anderson (Weston Creek Community Council) re Project Facilitation Bill, http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2013/comms/planning21a.pdf, p. 44, accessed 5 September 2016.

xxiii Robyn Coghlan (Belconnen Community Council) re Project Facilitation Bill, http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2013/comms/planning21a.pdf, p. 68, accessed 5 September 2016.

xxiv http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/planning-and-building/planning-development-online-486.html, accessed 5 September 2016.

xxv https://www.propertycouncil.com.au/downloads/submissions/DAreportcard2015.pdf, p. 59, accessed 5 September 2016.

xxvi Metropolitan Canberra – Urban consolidation, pp. 9–10.

xxvii http://www.hphpcentral.com/article/urban-planning-and-the-importance-of-green-space-in-cities-to-human-and-environmental-health#sthash.K2WUTJQh.dpuf, accessed 5 September 2016.

xxviii http://www.hphpcentral.com/article/the-economic-value-of-parks-for-human-health#_edn6, accessed 5 September 2016.