Mr NEVILLE (1:35 PM) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Striking the right balance: draft amendment 39, National Capital Plan.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr NEVILLE —by leave—Draft amendment 39 of the National Capital Plan was first brought to the committee's attention in February 2001. A revised version of the draft amendment was provided to the committee in April 2002. The committee considered this revised version and in May 2002 sought a reference from the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government to conduct an inquiry. In particular, the committee wished to learn why the original provision of draft amendment 39, which removed the designated area status from the Deakin-Forrest residential precinct, was not included in version 3 of the draft amendment.

The committee is well aware of the four competing interests in this matter and the need to strike the right balance between them. There is the ACT government, which seeks to provide a consistent and equitable set of planning and development processes throughout the territory. There are the residents and leaseholders from the area, most of whom wish to protect the residential character of the area. Then there are some who own properties on State Circle who want to enhance the value of their properties through commercial development. Finally, there is the Commonwealth, as represented by the National Capital Authority, charged with safeguarding the national capital significance of the area.

In its deliberations, the committee focused on three principal issues. The first was to determine who should have planning control over the area in question. The majority of the committee shares the concern of the National Capital Authority that the current and proposed changes to the territory residential policies have created some planning uncertainty. The majority of the committee believes that in this climate of uncertainty the Commonwealth should retain planning jurisdiction over the area. The majority of the committee also believes that National Circuit constitutes an appropriate outer boundary for the area. The report's first recommendation, therefore, is that the designated area status currently applicable to the Deakin-Forrest residential area between State Circle and National Circuit be retained.

The second issue confronting the committee was the nature of future development in the area. The area is a well-established residential precinct, for the most part exhibiting the best of Canberra as the garden city. The committee as a whole, therefore, recommended that the land use policy should continue to be residential and that non-residential development should be prohibited. The committee shares the concern of some residents and lessees that many of the properties fronting State Circle have fallen into a state of disrepair and detract from the national significance of the area. Both the National Capital Authority and a local developer presented the committee with different residential development scenarios for State Circle. The committee, however, chose not to judge which type of residential development proposal was most suitable for State Circle. The committee's primary concern was to ensure that any redevelopment of the State Circle sites be consistent with the residential character of the area. Further, the committee believes that the design and landscaping of the area should be of a standard commensurate with the status of the area and its national significance. These views are expressed in recommendation 3 of the report.

The third issue considered by the committee was the consultation process used by the National Capital Authority. The committee believes that, in relation to the redevelopment of 15 State Circle, the authority failed in its duty to the residents and lessees of the area and ignored the committee. In view of the committee's recommendation that the Commonwealth retain planning control over the area, the committee has further recommended that changes be made to the act to ensure greater public consultation by, and access to, the authority with respect to works approvals in the area.

I would like to express on behalf of the committee our gratitude to those who participated in the inquiry and to the staff of the secretariat. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my committee colleagues for their work and support throughout the course of the inquiry and the reporting process. That having been said, I commend the report to the House.