10.07.2015 Views

Governing the City State - Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate ...

Governing the City State - Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate ...

Governing the City State - Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Crown LeasesThe ACT’s property system is based on a system of leasehold, ra<strong>the</strong>r than freehold l<strong>and</strong>,giving <strong>the</strong> Government <strong>the</strong> capacity to prescribe in great detail <strong>the</strong> nature of development thatcan occur. The core of this leasehold system is <strong>the</strong> so called “purpose” clauses whichestablish permitted uses for particular parcels of l<strong>and</strong>. The purpose clause forms part of eachlease, notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing permitted l<strong>and</strong> uses are set out in <strong>the</strong> Territory Plan.A suggestion raised with <strong>the</strong> Review, meriting fur<strong>the</strong>r examination, is <strong>the</strong> streamlining ofleases by removal of duplication of purpose clauses in <strong>the</strong> Territory Plan <strong>and</strong> individualleases.A related issue of concern raised with <strong>the</strong> Review was <strong>the</strong> extent to which ACTPLA iscurrently resourced to pursue breaches of lease conditions.Future Procedural Reform Planning <strong>and</strong> Development ReformAn option raised with <strong>the</strong> Review involved separating <strong>the</strong> Development Approval functionfrom <strong>the</strong> planning function entirely. While not possible without legislative change, <strong>the</strong>arguments advanced for this position reflect local government responsibilities elsewhere, aswell as <strong>the</strong> desirability of signaling exactly where <strong>the</strong> line between statements of governmentpolicy expressed through <strong>the</strong> planning system rules, <strong>and</strong> arm’s length decision making onindividual proposals lies.The Review suggests reform of this magnitude is not warranted at this stage, but <strong>the</strong>Government may wish to commission advice on this point in <strong>the</strong> future.In any event, <strong>the</strong> Strategic Board should review <strong>and</strong> settle a process map for planning <strong>and</strong>development, that where possible allows for parallel processing of related approvals, 12months after <strong>the</strong> structural changes proposed by <strong>the</strong> Review have been implemented. Thiswill serve as <strong>the</strong> basis for specification of how <strong>the</strong> planning system is intended to work <strong>and</strong>discussion with <strong>the</strong> community about <strong>the</strong> course of any future reforms.HeritageWith regard to Heritage, <strong>the</strong> recently completed Heritage Review argues for “greater emphasison strategic approaches, proactive operations <strong>and</strong> a greater degree of transparency in <strong>the</strong>operations of <strong>the</strong> ACT heritage system”. 237 That approach to ensuring appropriate protection ofheritage assets in <strong>the</strong> ACT, as well as balancing sometimes competing interests in protecting<strong>the</strong> past <strong>and</strong> building <strong>the</strong> future of Canberra, is sound <strong>and</strong> would be facilitated <strong>and</strong> enhanced byresponsibility for heritage being located within <strong>the</strong> area of government responsible forregulation of development <strong>and</strong> not <strong>the</strong> proposed <strong>Chief</strong> <strong>Minister</strong>’s Department.237 Marshall, D. (2010) Australian Capital Territory Heritage Act Review. Canberra, p.12.Administrative Arrangements Changes: 195

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!