A planning system review has "missed the opportunity for meaningful reform" because the government has had a "predetermined outcome" through the consultation period, a community council has said.
The Weston Creek Community Council said in a response to the ACT government that while it supported the review of the current planning laws, it believed continuing with the draft district strategies and new Territory Plan was "a recipe for disaster".
Weston Creek Community Council chair Bill Gemmell said the feedback given to the council by the ACT government "has rendered the responses meaningless and does not encourage any community confidence for the future of good planning for the ACT".
"The government's response cements the belief that a predetermined outcome was always the true agenda," he said.
"The [parliamentary inquiry] recommended that the ACT government publish explicit and detailed reasons in a listening report or consultation report as to why the recommendations that were made by those who submitted to the government consultation were not actioned in the bill, Territory Plan, or District Strategy.
"It is insulting that this was not undertaken. The content and quality of the so-called listening report issued on May 23 further reinforces the view that the outcome of the community consultation was predetermined."
Listed in the council's response under the title of main concerns was the claim the review did not deliver true reform, but instead provided a reset point for the existing scheme.
Other concerns in the response include the multitude of roles held by the ACT's chief planner, deletion of the complaint process for the community and a lack of any definition of planning outcomes or any assessment criteria.
But there was a major need for better consultation with the community, the response from the Council said.
"There is a need for genuine community consultation to be included in the bill ... with sufficient time to contribute, early enough in the process for it to make a difference and run in accordance with good principles embedded in legislation," the response said.
Planning Minister Mick Gentleman said community consultation had been of the utmost importance during the reform process, and that the government was working closely to address a diverse range of opinions.
"The ACT government has made a large number of changes to the planning bill in response to feedback received from community consultation and the inquiry process," he said.
"The revised bill gets the balance right in delivering a legislative framework that responds to the range of different views and advice we have heard."
Mr Gentleman said changes made to the bill as a result of community consultation include further highlighting the importance of cultural heritage, housing affordability, clearer principles on how government and developers consult with the community, and allowing for longer consultation for significant developments.
"An improved planning system will deliver better outcomes and will provide a plan for Canberra's future .... these reforms will help direct where future change and growth is best suited and what infrastructure, facilities and services are needed to help this.
"The ACT government will continue to work with stakeholders and industry in the coming period of time as the bill enters the Legislative Assembly for debate."
The listening report also revealed Canberrans are concerned about how good outcomes would be defined under the proposed new planning system.
More than 90 per cent of respondents to a government survey said they were unsure how the new system would deliver good outcomes.
Opponents to greater urban intensification noted concerns about the changing character of suburbs, decreased amenity and stress to existing infrastructure and services, the report also said.
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.
