News location:

Canberra Today 3°/9° | Sunday, April 28, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

The planning minister really said that?

McKellar shops… there’s a developer out there wondering what was that all about. Photo: Paul Costigan

Residents had good reasons to be puzzled by the August 16 decision by the ACT planning minister to use his precious “call-in” powers, says “Canberra Matters” columnist PAUL COSTIGAN

Paul Costigan.

THE reasons given to refuse a development at the McKellar shops caused readers to wonder – did the planning minister really say that?

People wondered whether his action was appropriate given that these special planning minister’s powers were supposed to be limited to very dire circumstances. 

The media statement gave reasons that seemed very basic. It seemed that there must have been something else – unstated. 

Given how many shopping centres have had approvals for residential developments nearby, why was McKellar to be spared what is now a normal developer-driven development.

The residents who were seriously taken aback were those who had made submissions that included the argument that what was being proposed in their suburb or street would cause major traffic issues and problems with parking. 

There’s one restaurant, one business and a child-care centre at the McKellar shops – with heaps of parking bays.

The usual response from the government’s preferred traffic experts is that any street can have more parking – and besides, people will be using active travel, Rattenbury scooters and public transport – and do not forget the tram. And the Tardis will fly by the moon tonight.

But despite all those previous knock-backs on parking as an issue, here’s our minister for planning, Mick Gentleman, making a special call-in ruling that excess parking is a reason for knocking back a development application. Good to know! 

Please note his August 16 media statement – and be prepared to quote it in future submissions on developments along Northbourne Avenue, Woden and anywhere else.

Mick Gentleman’s reasons for his use of “call-in” powers have become a little loose in recent years. They are now used when Planning gets stuck and cannot find a way out of a mess of its own making. The solution is a quick page of instructions to Mick – and he reads it out as if he knows what he is doing. And we all believe that.

When it came to the new Dickson supermarket, the Common Ground DA in Dickson and the YWCA proposal for units on the side of Bill Pye Park, the minister obliged. This saved the day as the DAs in question did not meet the requirements. The Planning directorate’s now go-to solution to work around awkward problems of their own making is to instruct Gentleman to read yet another call-in statement along with some very silly reasons. 

This use of call-in powers has worked – with little scrutiny by the media, especially the local ABC. This way of solving seriously embarrassing issues for the government will probably not change as long as the Greenslabor politicians ignore the problems with planning in this city – including who is the one making the mess of things.

Given how the planning chief’s planning reforms are predicted to play out, things will be even worse as it is being proposed that these call-in powers should be transferred to the planning chief – with no politicians involved. At least the planning chief will no longer have to ask the planning minister to make a fool of himself.

As for McKellar and the development on the site in question, there’s a developer out there wondering what was that all about. 

We now wait to see what next for the minister’s use of call-in powers.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Paul Costigan

Paul Costigan

Share this

One Response to The planning minister really said that?

Ian Hubbard says: 10 September 2022 at 12:08 pm

It is hard to fathom what gets the Gentleman out of the shed to exercise his call-in-powers.
It’s certainly not the protection of community facilities, sports ovals or any green bits from residential development. You would think that if you followed the rules laid out in the Territory Plan that a development would be approved. The Territory Plan is simple and transparent. It delivers the best outcome for the community.

The problem is that the decision-making process is neither simple nor transparent. The independent Planning Authority approvals are often found not to comply with the Plan. When ACAT finds that the Planning Authority’s approval does not comply with the rules because a development might have a significant impact on residents, the local park and streetscape, that parking was inadequate and traffic unsafe and that the dwellings did not meet some basic amenity requirements. That’s OK because the planning Minister will burst out of the shed and use his powers to call in a ‘priority’ project.

In the case of the McKeller shops local centre despite the proposed development meeting the planning requirements of the Territory Plan for development in a local centre and being approved, the Minister pulled out the hammer to call-in the project. The reasons were clear, the project would have a significant impact on the streetscape and have inadequate parking. The residential component would exclude the possibility of future commercial development. As the Minister said “These local centres are the lifeblood of the community”. Mysteriously the demolition of a 70 year-old community centre in Ainslie is not part of the lifeblood of the community. The use of the call-in powers couldn’t be clearer.

The Minister should be able to use his call-in powers if the development is mean and ugly. But then he would be busy.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Opinion

Why respect is a two-way street in law

Legal columnist HUGH SELBY offers a spirited response to an opinion column by Kelly Saunders in which she posed the question over a defendant's right to silence in a sexual assault prosecution. Selby argues she's wrong... 

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews