Committee Report Template .au



Report on Annual and Financial Reports 2018-2019Standing Committee on Planning and Urban RenewalMarch 2020Report 11The CommitteeCommittee MembershipMs Caroline Le Couteur MLAChairMr Mark Parton MLADeputy ChairMr Michael Pettersson MLASecretariatMs Annemieke JongsmaSecretaryAlice HoughtonSenior Research OfficerDr Frieda ScottSenior Research OfficerMs Lydia ChungAdministrative AssistantContact InformationTelephone02 6205 1253PostGPO Box 1020, CANBERRA ACT 2601EmailLACommitteePUR@parliament..auWebsiteparliament..au Resolution of appointmentOn 13 December 2016 the ACT Legislative Assembly (the Assembly) agreed by resolution to establish legislative and general purpose standing committees to inquire into and report on matters referred to them by the Assembly or matters that are considered by the committees to be of concern to the community, including:(e)a Standing Committee on Environment and Transport and City Services to examine matters related to city and transport services, public infrastructure, heritage and sport and recreation and matters related to all aspects of climate change policy and programs, water and energy policy and programs, provision of water and energy services, conservation, environment and ecological sustainability.The Assembly agreed that each committee shall have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the relevant standing committees appointed during the previous Assembly.Terms of reference On 24 October 2019, the Assembly referred the annual and financial reports for the calendar year 2018 and the financial year 2018-2019 to Assembly committees for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in March 2020, in accordance with a schedule. The reports were presented to the Assembly pursuant to the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 2004.The reports and parts of reports referred to the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Renewal were:Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate - Architects Board of the ACTEnvironment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate - Planning; Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication Scheme; Public Housing Renewal Taskforce and Affordable Housing; Land Policy; City Renewal Authority; andSuburban Land Agency.AcronymsACTAustralian Capital TerritoryACTPSAustralian Capital Territory Public ServiceCITCanberra Institute of TechnologyCMTEDDChief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development DirectorateCRACity Renewal AuthorityDADevelopment ApplicationEDEconomic DevelopmentEPSDDEnvironment, Planning and Sustainable Development DirectorateLDALand Development AgencyPHRTPublic Housing Renewal TaskforceSLASuburban Land AgencyTCCSTransport Canberra and City ServicesTable of Contents TOC \h \z \t "Heading 2,1,Heading 3,2" The Committee PAGEREF _Toc36126474 \h iCommittee Membership PAGEREF _Toc36126475 \h iSecretariat PAGEREF _Toc36126476 \h iContact Information PAGEREF _Toc36126477 \h iResolution of appointment PAGEREF _Toc36126478 \h iiTerms of reference PAGEREF _Toc36126479 \h iiAcronyms PAGEREF _Toc36126480 \h iiiRecommendations PAGEREF _Toc36126481 \h vii1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc36126482 \h 1Conduct of the Inquiry PAGEREF _Toc36126483 \h 1Structure of the Report PAGEREF _Toc36126484 \h 1Acknowledgements PAGEREF _Toc36126485 \h 22Annual Reporting Requirements PAGEREF _Toc36126486 \h 3Timing and Presentation of Reports PAGEREF _Toc36126487 \h 43Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate PAGEREF _Toc36126488 \h 5Introduction PAGEREF _Toc36126489 \h 5Planning Delivery PAGEREF _Toc36126490 \h 6Planning and Building Policy PAGEREF _Toc36126491 \h 17Land Strategy PAGEREF _Toc36126492 \h 22Urban Renewal PAGEREF _Toc36126493 \h 26Public Housing Renewal Program PAGEREF _Toc36126494 \h 34Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication Scheme PAGEREF _Toc36126495 \h 354Suburban Land Agency PAGEREF _Toc36126496 \h 39Introduction PAGEREF _Toc36126497 \h 395Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate PAGEREF _Toc36126498 \h 50Introduction PAGEREF _Toc36126499 \h 50Architects Board of the ACT PAGEREF _Toc36126500 \h 516City Renewal Authority PAGEREF _Toc36126501 \h 53Introduction PAGEREF _Toc36126502 \h 537Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc36126503 \h 65Appendix A - Witnesses PAGEREF _Toc36126504 \h 677 and 8 November 2019 PAGEREF _Toc36126505 \h 67Appendix B – Questions taken on Notice/ Questions on Notice PAGEREF _Toc36126506 \h 68Recommendations TOC \n \h \z \t "Recommendation Heading,1,Recommendation Text,2,Recommendation Bullet,3" Recommendation 13.38The Committee recommends that all ministers ensure they have accurate information when answering questions and where they may have unintentionally misled a Committee, they should immediately correct the record.Recommendation 23.39The Committee recommends that the Minister seeks to clarify the statements he made to the Committee in relation to property values being impacted by the High Voltage Transmission Tower and make a statement correcting the record in the Assembly at the earliest possible opportunity.Recommendation 33.45The Committee recommends that the ACT government expedite all of the Territory Plan changes needed to give effect to the housing choices recommendations, including changes that will increase the supply of ‘missing middle’ housing.Recommendation 43.51The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide 6 monthly updates to the Assembly and the Planning and Urban Renewal Standing Committee on the progress of the Territory Plan Review.Recommendation 53.52That the ACT government re-establish the Planning and Development forum, or an alternative that meets the needs of stakeholders, as soon as possible.Recommendation 63.56The Committee recommends that the ACT Government extend the proposed apartment guidelines so that they apply to all apartments in Canberra.Recommendation 73.57The committee recommends that the ACT government improve planning controls and building rules to improve the ability of all new buildings in Canberra to alleviate the impacts of hot weather and not overheat.Recommendation 83.69The Committee recommends that the ACT Government finalise legal advice so that it can act accordingly in relation to valuing land whist also taking into account affordability requirements.Recommendation 93.70The committee recommends that the ACT government ensure that the land sold as affordable land will be reserved for affordable housing and that this is able to be reflected in the price of the land.Recommendation 103.79The Committee recommends that the ACT Government expedites the demonstration housing process so that those projects with sites start the public consultation process this financial year and those without sites are offered sites this financial year.Recommendation 113.104The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide adequate support for remaining residents in Mr Fluffy homes, in particular those with medical needs.Recommendation 123.109The Committee recommends that, as the ACT Government has indicated that it is hopeful that non-compliant Mr Fluffy asbestos matters will not go to court, it takes a more cooperative approach to its communications with Mr Fluffy affected residents and instead focuses on supporting them to be compliant.Recommendation 134.10The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide more detail on the number of dwellings anticipated for the Kingston Arts Precinct Development.Recommendation 144.11The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide more detail on the proposed parking arrangements for the Kingston Arts Precinct Development.Recommendation 154.15The Committee recommends that the ACT Government ensure that full and transparent consultation is undertaken with arts groups, local residents and businesses.Recommendation 165.13The Committee recommends that the vacant position of academic architect representative on the ACT Architects Board be filled as soon as practicable.Recommendation 176.19The Committee recommends that at the conclusion of the waste enclosure program 12 month trial, the City Renewal Authority consider expanding the program to include other areas of Civic.Recommendation 186.20The Committee recommends that at the conclusion of the waste enclosure program 12 month trial, the City Renewal Authority expand the program to trial the collection of food waste for composting.IntroductionOn 24 October 2019, the Assembly referred the annual and financial reports for the calendar year 2018-2019 and the financial year 2018 to Assembly committees for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in March 2020.The following annual reports, or sections of annual reports were referred to the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Renewal (the Committee):Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate - Architects Board of the ACTEnvironment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate – Planning Delivery; Planning and Building Policy; Land Strategy; Urban Renewal; Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication Scheme; Public Housing Renewal; City Renewal Authority; andSuburban Land Agency.Conduct of the InquiryThe Committee held public hearings on the 7 November 2019 and the 8 November 2019. At this hearings, the Committee heard evidence from 25 witnesses. Full details of witnesses who appeared are available in Appendix A of this report. Transcripts from the hearings are available at: total of 17 questions were taken on notice during the public hearings and 39 questions were placed on notice after the hearing. Please refer to Appendix B for a list of the questions. Answers to the questions are provided on the inquiry webpage: of the ReportThe report presents a summary of the Committee’s inquiry into the annual reports listed in paragraph 1.2. In developing this report, the Committee has primarily focused on the issues that were raised at public hearings although some additional material has been drawn from annual report documents.The structure of this report is as follows:Chapter 1: IntroductionChapter 2: Annual Reporting RequirementsChapter 3: Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development DirectorateChapter 4: Suburban Land AgencyChapter 5: Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development DirectorateChapter 6: City Renewal AuthorityChapter 7: Conclusion.The EPSDD is responsible for the policy component of many matters for which the operational component is the responsibility of the CRA or SLA. Please be advised that as questions during the hearings often addressed both policy and operational issues in relation to particular projects or aspects of operation these matters may be discussed in this report either under the EPSDD chapter or in the CRA or SLA chapters.AcknowledgementsThe Committee thanks relevant ACT Government Ministers and accompanying directorate officials for providing their time and expertise as witnesses at its annual reports hearings.Annual Reporting RequirementsThe Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 2004 sets out the framework for annual reporting across the ACT public sector. In accordance with the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 2004, the Annual Reports Directions (the Directions) are issued annually to outline agency reporting requirements.As specified in the Directions, annual reports are ‘reports from agency heads to their responsible Minister, the Legislative Assembly and the public.’ Annual reports enable agencies to provide an account of their performance, through Ministers, to the Legislative Assembly and the wider community.The Directions state that an effective annual report will:provide clear information about the reporting entity’s purpose, priorities, outputs and achievements;focus on results and outcomes - communicate the success or shortfalls of the reporting entity’s activities in pursuing government objectives in the reporting year, while accounting for the resources used in the process and explaining changes in performance over time;discuss results against expectations - provide sufficient information and analysis for the Legislative Assembly and community to make a fully informed judgment on a reporting entity’s performance;clearly identify any changes to structures or functions of the reporting entity in the reporting period;report on reporting entity financial and operational performance and clearly link this with budgeted priorities and financial projections as set out in annual Budget Estimate Papers and the entity Statement of Intent and Corporate Plan;provide performance information that is complete and informative, linking costs and results to provide evidence of value for money;discuss risks and environmental factors affecting the reporting entity’s ability to achieve objectives including any strategies employed to manage these factors, and forecast future needs and expectations;recognise the diverse needs and backgrounds of stakeholder groups and present information in a manner that is useful to the maximum number of users while maintaining a suitable level of detail; andcomply with legislative reporting requirements including the Annual Reports Act and the Directions. Annual reports are public documents and available for use by stakeholders, including educational and research institutions, and the broader community. They provide a valuable tool for public reporting, accountability and transparency.Timing and Presentation of ReportsThe Directions for 2018-2019 required annual reports to be presented to the responsible Minister before the close of business on 4 October 2019. Unless an extension of time was granted under section 14 of the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 2004, annual reports were required to be given to the Speaker’s office by the close of business on 11 October 2019.Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development DirectorateIntroductionThe Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate (EPSDD) manages a wide range of policies and programs to deliver on the ACT Government’s key planning, land management and environment priorities. Portfolio responsibilities cover topics such as built environment, land strategy, planning policy, urban renewal, building policy, development and leasing applications, the environment, water, heritage, parks and nature conservation, climate change and energy.The Directorate also provides corporate and governance support for the Suburban Land Agency and the City Renewal Authority.Sections of the EPSDD 2018-2019 Annual Report were referred to the Committee for inquiry and report.The Committee held a public hearing with Ms Suzanne Orr MLA, Minister for Employment and Workplace Safety; on 8 November 2019 to examine the following area of the EPSDD 2018-2019 Annual Report:Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication Scheme.The Committee held a public hearing with Ms Rachel Stephen-Smith MLA, Minister for Urban Renewal on 8 November 2019 to examine the following area of the EPSDD 2018-2019 Annual Report:Urban Renewal.The Committee held a public hearing with Mr Mick Gentleman MLA, Minister for Planning and Land Management on 7 November 2019 to examine the following areas of the EPSDD 2018-2019 Annual Report:Land Strategy; Planning Delivery; and Planning and Building Policy (Planning matters).The Committee held a public hearing with Ms Yvette Berry MLA, Minister for Housing and Suburban Development on 7 November 2019 to examine the following area of the EPSDD 2018-2019 Annual Report:Public Housing RenewalOther areas of the EPSDD 2018-2019 Annual Report were considered by other Committees.Planning DeliveryThe EPSDD performs the functions of the planning and land authority under the Planning and Development Act 2007. This includes the management of development assessment processes, environmental impact assessments, the administration of the leasehold system, and the Office of the Surveyor General and Land Information.The Committee discussed the following issues with the Minister and Directorate Officials:Development Application Appeals;Development Application Approval Times;Development Application referrals;Electric Towers in Holt;Ginninderry Joint Venture – Role of EPSDD;Ginninderry Joint Venture – Cross Border Planning;Ginninderry – Land; andGinninderry – Territory Plan Variations;Ginninderry Joint Venture – Role of EPSDDThe Committee asked the Directorate what role the ESPDD had in the Ginninderry joint venture. They were informed that:The agreement with the Riverview Group that creates the Ginninderry JV is between the territory and Riverview. In terms of EPSDD’s involvement, as the director-general and the territory’s representative to that agreement I have provided an agency agreement to the Suburban Land Agency to act as agent. That is a long way of saying that we have a contractual relationship with Riverview to create the JV, but in terms of operationalising that, it is entirely the Suburban Land Agency.It was also asked what role the EPSDD had in the development of the joint venture agreement and the Directorate stated that they had no involvement:…in terms of the agreement itself, settling the agreement. Obviously the directorate at the time would have provided comment through the cabinet process, but in terms of drafting the agreement that was the then Land Development Agency. I understand that originally the then Land Development Agency was intended to be the party to the agreement but late in the process that became referenced to the territory. There are some legal reasons as to why it then becomes the directorate, as opposed to the Suburban Land Agency.In further questioning the Committee asked what is reported to the EPSDD under the agreement and were informed that the Director-General of EPSDD meets with the CEO of the SLA weekly whilst there is also a meeting between senior executives of the EPSD and the SLA. The Committee were also told by the Chief Operating Officer that he meets:…with senior officers of the SLA on a fortnightly basis on matters that may come up that we need to discuss around the joint venture—how progress is going and if there are outstanding questions around the joint venture. We keep abreast of it that way. On a weekly basis the joint venture provides a report to the directorate, to the SLA, on the progress of how much concrete they have put down, how much bitumen is going down, sales and all those other matters.In an Answer to a Question Taken on Notice the Directorate summarised the role of the EPSDD indicating to the Committee that:The Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate (EPSDD) is involved in working towards the outcome of the JV through its statutory planning and regulatory functions under the Planning and Development Act 2007 including implementing the Territory Plan. EPSDD is involved in the outcome of the JV through its statutory responsibilities for delivery of nature conservation functions under the Nature Conservation Act 2014 and the exercise of the role and responsibilities of the conservator of flora and fauna, particularly in the Ginninderry conservation corridor. EPSDD is responsible for administering the funding agreement for the Ginninderry Conservation Trust established to manage the conservation values of the conservation corridor.Ginninderry Joint Venture – Cross Border PlanningIn further discussion about the Ginninderry Joint Venture the Committee sought clarification on how the joint venture interacts with the ACT Planning Strategy and what work was done by the ACT Government to support the planning and rezoning processes. They were informed in an Answer to a Question Taken on Notice that:The development potential of West Belconnen was previously recognised in the Canberra Spatial Plan (2004). In 2012 the Canberra Spatial Plan was replaced by the ACT Planning Strategy. That Strategy recognised the area of West Belconnen as a future urban investigation area for possible settlement, which supported investigations into the suitability and capability of the area to be developed for urban purposes. On 5 May 2016 Amendment 86 to the National Capital Plan was approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government, which incorporated changes proposed to the Plan by Draft Amendment 85 - West Belconnen Urban Development. The National Capital Authority's consultation process ran concurrently with processes conducted by the ACT Government's then Environment and Planning Directorate in relation to Draft Territory Plan Variation 351, which was required to ensure consistency between the Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan. The Committee was told that Territory Plan Variation 351, which commenced on 22 July 2016: …rezoned an area immediately west of the suburbs of Holt and Macgregor for future urban development. The main changes indicating potential future urban development patterns and guiding future development and assessment of the area included:rezoning part of the site to a range of urban zonesintroducing a nature reserve overlay to the Murrumbidgee River corridor zonerezoning the Strathnairn Arts Precinct and Belconnen Farm Heritage Precinct to community facility zoneapplying a future urban area (FUA) overlay to part of the siteintroducing a site-specific structure plan and concept plan into the Territory Plan.In terms of the requirements for environmental management and strategic assessment, as specified in the EPBC Act, the Committee was further informed, in an Answer to a Question Taken on Notice, that: On 24 June 2014 the Australian Government entered into an agreement with Riverview Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd to undertake a strategic assessment (the strategic assessment) of a proposed urban development at West Belconnen, ACT and NSW. The development site, now referred to as Ginninderry, involves land to the west of the existing suburbs of Holt, Macgregor and Dunlop in the ACT, and land within NSW up to the Murrumbidgee River and Ginninderra Creek. The assessment was required in accordance with s 146 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act).The strategic assessment explored the impacts of the proposed urban development in the West Belconnen areas on listed threatened species and ecological communities, listed migratory species and any other protected matter that may be present. The draft strategic assessment and associated draft Program Report were open for public comment from 14 May to 10 June 2016. On 18 July 2017 a program for urban development and biodiversity conservation at West Belconnen was endorsed by the Australian Government Minister for Environment and Energy under section 146 of the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth). On 1 September 2017, the Minister granted approval for classes of actions under the endorsed Program. The approval allows for urban development and biodiversity conservation at West Belconnen as identified in the program to proceed without the need for further approval from the Minister. The strategic assessment was undertaken in parallel with and to inform the planning approval processes.To comply with the requirements of the strategic assessment, a series of plans were required to be developed. The plans include:Ginninderry Conservation Corridor management Plan 2018-2023, September 2018;The Ginninderry Development Offsets Management Plan (for Pink-Tailed Worm Lizard and Box Gum Woodland), 5 October 2018;Gooromon Grasslands: Offset Management Plan 2018-2012, October 2018;Ginninderry Development Construction Environment Management Plan Framework, 12 October 2018.The plans were endorsed by the ACT Conservator of Flora and Fauna on 19 November 2018 and approved by the Minister for Environment and Heritage, on 31 January 2019. The approved Ginninderry Conservation Management Plan is an interim non-statutory plan that will be required to proceed through the statutory reserve management plan process under the Nature Conservation Act 2014. At the time Minister for Environment and Heritage approved this interim plan, he noted the intention of Ginninderry to incorporate the plan into a statutory review of the broader Murrumbidgee River Corridor Management Plan and this course of action had been agreed with the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy.The Committee also asked about the work being done by the ACT Government towards achieving the outcomes of the joint venture, particularly in terms of cross-border planning. In an Answer to a Question Taken on Notice the Minister indicated that:It is a commitment of the Parliamentary Agreement between Labor and the Greens to work towards moving the ACT-NSW border in West Belconnen, with the effect that the entire Ginninderry development would be within the ACT. Notwithstanding this goal, the ACT is working closely with NSW and Vass Valley Council on joint planning for services and infrastructure for the cross-border development of the Ginninderry estate. The ACT-NSW Memorandum of Understanding for Regional Collaboration (ACT-NSW MoU) is the primary framework for the ACT Government's engagement with the NSW Government. Under the auspices of this ACT-NSW MoU, the ACT Government has engaged extensively with the NSW Government to resolve issues around supporting cross-border service access and delivery. This includes through two West Belconnen/Parkwood Cross-Border Agency Forums, which occurred in March 2016 and 2019 respectively. These Forums included significant representation from NSW and ACT Government agencies, including emergency services, utilities providers and local government representatives. The Committee was further informed, in an Answer to a Question Taken on Notice, that a number of approvals were made by the Minister for Planning and Land Management, notably the: Variation to the Territory Plan No. 351 to put in place the primary planning documents setting the broad planning principles and policies for the urban development and specific planning and development requirements to guide the design and assessment of the estate development.The Committee was also informed that the Minister for Environment and Heritage had approved ‘management plans for the Ginninderry development as required by the approval under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.’Electric Towers in HoltThere was extensive discussion about the electric towers in Holt. Noting the ‘towers along the easement, 5A, 6A and 7A, were built 20 metres away from people’s backyards as opposed to building them in the middle of the easement, 45 metres away from people’s backyards’ the Directorate was asked why they hadn’t been built according to the guidelines and who knew about that. The Minister initially gave the Committee some background on the parties involved:TransGrid are the proponent in this case, building a second electricity supply for the ACT. My understanding is that these are 330-kilovolt powerlines. My understanding from .au is that the national requirement for easement for 330-kilovolt powerlines is 58 metres. In this sense, they should have at least a 58-metre easement from the powerlines. The work started back in 2014. The ACT government and TransGrid commenced consultation with the landholders and other relevant stakeholders at that time. The proponent was also required to undertake consultation as part of the environmental impact statement process. This is the proponent of the residential development into the future as well. In regard to those transition lines within the 90-metre easement, consultation was undertaken with the lessee, which was Woodhaven, which was the developer of the Gungahlin stage of the blocks. They were due to engage with purchasers of those blocks to advise of the possibility of these towers going forward.The Minister was then asked if the developers of the land knew about the towers and how close they were to residents backyards. During the hearing the Directorate indicated that:…in relation to the developer who was selling the land, the easement is located on that company’s land and they were engaged in the process in the lead-up to and, in fact, signed the development application form to allow lodgement of the application. They certainly were aware of what was being proposed because we needed the lessee’s consent for the application to be lodged.I would be surprised if they signed an application form for a development on their land without understanding what was proposed.In an answer to a Question Taken on Notice the Minister also indicated that:ln 2014, the proponent (TransGrid) commenced consultation with all affected land holders, including the adjacent lessee of the Holt estate at the time (Woodhaven Investments Pty Ltd). In 2015, Woodhaven undertook a draft variation to the Territory Plan (DV340) and acknowledged in the application that the existing 90 m easement was to remain to cater for the future 330 kV powerlines. On 12 December 2016, representatives of Woodhaven were advised of the final location of the towers, following a detailed review of their location. After this, Woodhaven undertook a design to relocate greens and fairways on the golf course, confirming the layout arrangements. In the same Answer to a Question Taken on Notice the Minister explained to the Committee the DA process that had been undertaken:The proposal for construction of the electrical supply infrastructure was considered under an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Impact Track Development Application (DA) process. The documentation for the applications, amongst other things, included a full description of the proposal and included detailed plans depicting the location of towers and powerlines, including a detailed design of each tower. The documentation also identified blocks that would be affected and proposed mitigation measures to minimise the impact. All documentation was publicly notified by the planning and land authority between 5 March 2018 and 26 April 2018 (35 working days). The adjacent landholders at the time were notified, as well as documentation being made publicly available on the authority's website. In an Answer to a Question on Notice the Minister explained to the Committee that there had been some administrative errors in relation to the DA process for DA 201732500:Development application (DA) 201732500 was lodged on 22 February 2018 over 11 large blocks. Due to IT system limitations, a number of blocks had to be manually removed from the database in order for the public notification package for that DA to be produced. Upon completion of the public notification process, the blocks that were removed from the database should have been entered back into the system. Due to an administrative oversight, this did not occur. At the time the lease conveyancing report was produced for Block 18 Section 128 Holt, DA201732500 on Block 2 Section 132 Holt was not referenced as a result of that administrative error. Once Access Canberra was made aware of the error, the information in the planning database was updated to reflect all the subject blocks on which the development application was lodged and standard operating procedures were reviewed and updated to ensure this error does not occur again in the future.In relation to the DA, the Minister made further note in his Answer to a Question Taken on Notice that a number of elements were taken into consideration by the proponent and the team assessing the EIS and the DA:The infrastructure was proposed within an electrical easement that is 90m wide, which has existed for a number of decades. An easement of this nature is to establish and cater for crucial infrastructure that services the whole of the ACT. The infrastructure was proposed to be located adjacent to an existing 132 kV line within the easement. Separation between the two lines and other factors were considered by the proponent for the actual location of the powerlines. These factors included:the distance from adjacent developmentthe height of the powerlinesthe materials used for the towersthe configuration of the towers and linesdistance in-between the conductorpotential impact on protected (environmental) matters and any avoidance measuresimpact on native vegetationand potential impact on the surrounding area.During the assessment process, consideration was given to the matters above and health, visual and environmental impacts (including ACT and Commonwealth protected matters). The EIS addressed avoidance and mitigation measures to reduce the impacts, such as screening planting between towers and residential estates. On completion of the assessment process, it was determined that the final proposal, with the implementation of mitigation measures, was the outcome with the least overall impact.The Minister also advised the Committee that the following Australian Standards and Guidelines were also applicable to the construction of the powerlines:The powerline infrastructure is located within an existing 90m wide easement. The easement currently contains a 132 kV powerline, with the new 330 kV powerline currently under construction adjacent to the 132 kV line within the same easement. The relevant Australian Standard for Overhead line design (AS/NZS 7000) provides for typical easement widths for a range of powerlines and requires a typical easement width of 60m for 330 kV lines ('actual easement is 90m) and a building restriction width of 30m, measured from the centre of the overhead line to a building (actual survey points of 31.42m and 32.Slm). The powerline infrastructure is also required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines for limiting exposure to EMF and easement safety requirements established by TransGrid.When asked to clarify if he had approved the construction of the towers the Minister responded that yes he had and that he had used his call in powers to do so, based on the environmental impact statements. However, he did not recall if there had been any reference to the towers being built 20m from residents backyards.In a statement he made later that afternoon (7 November 2019), to the EDT Committee, the Minister stated that:I just want to clarify some information sought by Mrs Kikkert and Mr Coe earlier regarding the second electricity supply project. As notified to Mrs Kikkert in answer to a question on notice, the tower closest to residential properties, as approved to be constructed, is at a distance of 20.7 metres from the base of the tower to the nearest boundary fence of the easement. So there are no homes or fences within 20 metres of the electricity supply. My role in this decision was determining that the proposal met the relevant requirements. I am confident that the proposal met these requirements. Once a decision is made, of course, then the enforcement is up to Access Canberra, whether this is regarding the land, the contracts or the safety of utilities. If any of Mrs Kikkert’s constituents believe that any tower has been constructed within the 20 metres then this would be not compliant with the approvals, and the constituent should contact the utilities technical regulator through Access Canberra. The project underwent significant public consultation, especially with the developer, and responsibility for notifying prospective residents about easements lies with the seller of the land, which in this case was a private developer. Any residents who believe they are being misled about the easement should contact Access Canberra as a consumer law matter. In respect to property values, the EIS may have indicated reduced property values as a potential risk. But just because the EIS identifies a potential risk does not necessarily mean that this risk is realised. And I stand by my statement that I have not seen any evidence of a decline in property values in Holt.It was noted that the TransGrid fencing guidelines:‘suggest that metal fences parallel to a transmission line outside the easement, within 10 metres of the easement, should be earthed once in line with each structure tower and once in the middle of each span. In addition, fences within 20 metres of the easement should be earthed once in line with each structure.’ Consequently the Minister was asked what the responsibility of the ACT Government was in regards to notifying residents that they would need to earth their metal fences. The Directorate indicated that this was actually a matter for the Utilities Technical Regulator.In further discussions, the Minister was asked about the impact of the 330-kilovolt transmission line on property prices. It was highlighted to the minister that he had previously mentioned in the Assembly that there is ‘no evidence that it would drive down any house prices at all,’ however the EIS that the minister had signed off on indicated that the ‘potential impact to property prices is actually rated as medium.’ He was then asked why his statement differed from the EIS statement and in response the Minister stated that ‘Whether or not there is a downgrade in property prices is a different matter…I have not seen an impact on property prices.’However the Committee was informed in an Answer to a Question Taken on Notice that property values did appear to have been influenced by the High Voltage Transmission line with the ACT government offering a property owner compensation. The included document entitled Ginninderry Weekly Update For Minister Yvette Berry & SLA Board Members, dated 22 November 2019 indicated that: Project team representatives met with the purchaser of Block 2 Section 8 (Ruth Everett) on 23rd August to discuss her concerns (expressed via social media) further to the recent installation of a new HV transmission Tower near her block. An offer to settle $233,500 exclusive of GST has been accepted by Ruth and the project has identified a third-party builder to purchase directly for this price. Ruth’s solicitor has now issued the contract to the builder’s solicitor and exchange is pending. Recent advice from Ruth Everett’s father (Conor) is that they are hoping for the settlement to occur by the 1st December.The evidence from this Answer to a Question on Notice does not appear to be consistent with that given by the Minister during his evidence to the Committee.In referencing the earlier statement of the Minister about there being a requirement for a 58 metre easement from the powerlines the Committee asked why structures had been approved that were less than 58 metres away. In response the Minister stated that his ‘approval was that they would be within the national guidelines and authority for transmission lines…If they were outside those guidelines I would have to check.’The Directorate further indicated that it ‘would be a matter for the utilities technical regulation team to examine if something has been built not in accordance with the requirements.’Committee CommentThe Committee notes that the discrepancies in the information provided by the Minister during the hearings and the information provided by the SLA in an Answer to Question On Notice No. 31 (QON 31) were not immediately apparent to the Committee. However after being asked by Minister Berry to potentially redact the content of the Answer to QON 31 in correspondence dated 12 March 2020 they observed, during their considerations on 18 March 2020, there was a discrepancy between the evidence given by the Minister during the hearing on 7 November 2019 and the information provided in the Answer to QON 31.Due to the tight time frame between identifying the discrepancies and the requirements for deliberation and tabling of this report the Committee has been unable to raise the matter with the Minister or SLA so that the record could be publicly corrected prior to this report being tabled. As such the Committee has recommended that the Minister seek to correct the record in the Assembly as soon as practicable.Recommendation seq NumList 1The Committee recommends that all ministers ensure they have accurate information when answering questions and where they may have unintentionally misled a Committee, they should immediately correct the record.Recommendation seq NumList 2The Committee recommends that the Minister seeks to clarify the statements he made to the Committee in relation to property values being impacted by the High Voltage Transmission Tower and make a statement correcting the record in the Assembly at the earliest possible opportunity.Planning and Building PolicyThe Planning and Building Policy division of EPSDD is responsible for the provision of high quality professional services in strategic land planning; administering the Territory Plan; planning for land release; developing policies for high quality urban design; and policies for buildings, building services, and the building and construction industry.The Committee discussed the following issues with the Minister and Directorate Officials:Territory Plan Review;Housing Choices – collaboration hubs;Housing Choices – co-housing and infrastructure permeable surfaces;Housing Choices – Woden and Tuggeranong;Gungahlin Town Centre Planning Refresh;Apartment Guidelines for the ACT;Billboards Working Group;Advertising hoardings;Traffic impact of multiple development – Woden;Traffic impact of multiple development – Belconnen; andGeocon Garema Place Development – Entertainment action plan.Housing Choices – Collaboration HubsThe Committee asked the Directorate what the current progress was with regards to the housing choices collaboration hubs. In response the Directorate stated that:With housing choices, there were a couple of recommendations that we wanted to proceed with. We have looked at separating a couple so that we can try to do those ahead of the planning review work. We are advancing the ones associated with site coverage that also connect with the living infrastructure work. We are in discussions with the minister and the government about advancing that one. The other, which is a bit more about zoning, we are wrapping into the planning review work, because it brings up other issues around zoning, so we want to look at that in a broader perspective. Some of the other elements have been carried through with demonstration housing.The Directorate went on to state that:One of the other recommendations we are moving forward with is the concept of co-housing, providing a range of housing options. That is something we are working on as well.The Committee then sought clarification as to what is meant by co-housing and was informed that it was separate to the co-housing concept in the demonstration housing project. They were also told that:During the housing choices engagement, we heard from a variety of people. The idea of co-housing is that it has shared facilities. That might be a shared kitchen or a shared living room; it is something that is not a full house on its own. It is not multi-unit housing; it is something where you have a shared facility. We are just investigating that.Recommendation seq NumList 3The Committee recommends that the ACT government expedite all of the Territory Plan changes needed to give effect to the housing choices recommendations, including changes that will increase the supply of ‘missing middle’ housing. Territory Plan ReviewThe Committee asked the Directorate what the timeline was on the Territory Plan review and were informed that the project ‘is a long project’ which is expected to run for three years. The Committee was told that the last twelve months had been focused on engagement and consultation with the Canberra community:That started with a session with the community councils back in December 2018. It was really just an introduction to the concept. In around March and April we had a fairly detailed workshop with industry and community groups, including the community councils. In around June or July we communicated with those people that we had been in contact with. In response to the feedback that we had received about over-engaging and making sure that we did not overload people in the engagement exercise, we also tapped into the wellbeing indicators engagement work that was being done. We have been doing that in terms of using that process to get a better understanding of what people value in their local communities and what is important to them from a wellbeing perspective. The Directorate went on to indicate that the current phase involves:…doing some behind the scenes work and also some broader and targeted consultation and engagement activities. For example, we had the Manuka stakeholder panel on 29 July and also a Kingston drop-in session. We have held a stakeholder roundtable and workshop on the entertainment action plan. We have had a “your say” community panel survey with just under 1,000 respondents, 994 respondents, with 400 of those people advising that they would like to participate in more detailed focus group sessions on the planning review. We are currently working through that, developing the next round of focus groups with many of those participants and analysing what we heard through those engagement activities. The Directorate also told the Committee that social inclusion and engagement with ATSI communities was also a current focus:…we needed to do more in terms of engaging in the planning space with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, so we have been doing that as well. We have been working with those communities to better understand how we can effectively engage with them on planning matters. We have also been working with ACTCOSS on engagement opportunities that focus on social inclusion. That is, obviously, linked into the work that we are doing on the planning review. The role of the environment and planning forum was noted by the Directorate as an element of their current work:There has also been work on revitalising the environment and planning forum. We have taken a pause with that forum because the feedback that I was receiving was that it was not necessarily fit for purpose. It was really a case of directorate officials talking to community and industry people, as opposed to giving them the chance to really workshop and explore ideas. We are in a position to go back to EPF members later this month to talk through how we think we can better engage with that group. One of the first workshop sessions with that group will be around social inclusion as it relates to the planning review. The Committee was told that with all the activities that have taken place that it was important to work ‘on securing additional resources for the next phase of work’ and with the recognition that more targeted consultation is needed they indicated that:We expect that we will be in a position to provide an update to the community, particularly through the community councils, in late November or early December in terms of where things are heading in relation to this work, with a view to then undertaking further engagement in early 2020, particularly around the development assessment system and district-level planning, with a view to providing advice to government soon after.Recommendation seq NumList 4The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide 6 monthly updates to the Assembly and the Planning and Urban Renewal Standing Committee on the progress of the Territory Plan Review.Recommendation seq NumList 5That the ACT government re-establish the Planning and Development forum, or an alternative that meets the needs of stakeholders, as soon as possible.Apartment Guidelines for the ACTIn the context of the regularly raised issue of overheating apartments, the Committee asked about the work being undertaken to develop the new rules for the design of apartments and if that work was proceeding. In response the Directorate indicated that it was ‘well underway’ and that:In fact, the apartment guidelines that you are referring to—the New South Wales reference is SEPP 65—we have done quite a bit of work in developing those guidelines and incorporating those provisions into a Territory Plan variation that we hope to be released soon for the Northbourne Avenue corridor, giving effect to the city and gateway work, as a way to start to trial these apartment guidelines. In terms of the status of that work, we are in the process of advising the minister. Hopefully, we will be in a position to make some more public statements soon.The Directorate further indicated that they had ‘developed apartment guidelines based on SEPP 65’ and that they were giving statutory effect to those through a Territory Plan Variation (city and gateway) which was concurrently being prepared. They also told the Committee they were also looking at other ways, such as the use of the Design Review Panel, to make sure that other developments have to comply.The Committee asked about whether the new rules would consider climate change issues and the Directorate indicated in an Answer to a Question on Notice that:The City and Gateway Urban Design Framework (the Framework) recommends improved solar access to habitable rooms for apartment development. As part of its implementation, the ACT Government will introduce improved solar access provisions as a part of upcoming variations to the Territory Plan. The National Capital Authority (NCA) has also introduced similar provisions through Amendment 91 to the National Capital Plan. These improved solar access provisions require:? a variety of apartment designs such as dual aspect, shallow layouts, two storey and mezzanine levels;? all habitable rooms to have an operable window in an external wall with a minimum glass area of not less than 15% of the floor area of the room to increase sunlight penetration and improve ventilation;? shading and glare controls to manage sun penetration in warmer months; and? no more than 15% of the apartments to receive no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice to decrease the number of apartments receiving no direct sunlight.The Territory Plan contains a variety of controls which contribute to the overall environmental performance of a building, enabling buildings to be adaptable in a changing climate. These rules relate to solar access, private and site open space, planting areas, cross flow-ventilation, shading and new block orientation. None of these rules preclude a building from being 'all-electric'.The ACT Climate Change Strategy 2019-25 and ACT Planning Strategy 2018 acknowledge that the energy performance of our buildings, and the type of energy they use, will affect the comfort of occupants and the ability to reduce emissions over coming decades.The City and Gateway Urban Design Framework (the Framework) supports sustainable building performance. As part of its implementation, the ACT Government will introduce improved natural ventilation provisions as a part of upcoming variations to the Territory Plan. The National Capital Authority (NCA) has also introduced similar provisions through Amendment 91 to the National Capital Plan.Recommendation seq NumList 6The Committee recommends that the ACT Government extend the proposed apartment guidelines so that they apply to all apartments in Canberra.Recommendation seq NumList 7The committee recommends that the ACT government improve planning controls and building rules to improve the ability of all new buildings in Canberra to alleviate the impacts of hot weather and not overheat.Land StrategyThe Land Strategy division of EPSDD focus on providing strategic, policy and planning support, including preparation of the four-year Indicative Land Release Program (ILRP). The ILRP sets out the Government’s intended program for land release and seeks to facilitate housing diversity, provide affordable housing, stimulate economic activity, and meet the demand for land in the Territory and support a competitive land development and construction market.The Committee discussed the following issues with the Minister and Directorate Officials:Indicative Land Release Program (ILRP);Affordable Housing Targets;Land supply for Woden and Tuggeranong;Management of Delivery of Affordable Housing;Affordable Blocks and Community Housing providers; andEOI Process for Builders of Affordable Housing.Affordable Housing TargetsThe Directorate were asked as to why the government had fallen 139 dwellings short of the 2018-19 affordable housing target. The Committee was told that:…it was because of the release time; some of the properties were not released within the time frame we had thought. One of the ongoing things we have with the indicative land release program is tracking the timing of when the land is ready for release, whether we are meeting the targets, and if we are not meeting them how we will catch up to meet them.The Committee was assured that the Directorate would be intending to meet the target, however concerns were raised that the needs of the community would not be addressed. The Directorate acknowledged there was still a need and that their ‘intention is to constantly monitor the need and what we can appropriately release and what the SLA can also release.’When it was raised by the Committee that land was being sold at a median of $355,000 in a particular suburb, Taylor, which was $20,000 more than the bottom affordable housing tier and $26,000 and $80,000 above the other two tiers, the Directorate sought to refer it to the SLA for consideration, however, did acknowledge that:With respect to the comparison—I will let the minister answer if he likes—we have been doing that analysis ourselves. It may be more appropriate for Minister Berry to respond, but we are looking at whether if the market is providing a certain product in a certain threshold then perhaps we need to look at what other mechanisms we have available to ensure that we can meet the needs of people who need affordable housing if they cannot get into the market at that level. We are aware of some of those pricing issues and how the affordable product and the affordable housing mechanisms through sale and rent we are using can still meet the need.They also reiterated that:The affordable housing targets and the number of dwellings are certainly within Minister Gentlemen’s portfolio and responsibilities, but the housing policy is for the housing minister, Minister Berry, and the delivery of that is with the Suburban Land Agency. Whilst I appreciate the line of questioning, what the land is being sold for is a matter for the Suburban Land Agency.In an answer to a Question Taken on Notice the Minister noted that: Single residential blocks of land in Taylor for affordable housing are not currently being sold to builders at a median price of $355,000. The Suburban Land Agency has identified packages of single residential blocks in Taylor that include compact blocks suitable for affordable housing as part of a recent Expression of Interest process. This process closed on Thursday 26 September 2019 and is currently subject to evaluation. The land value of these packages of blocks will be considered based on independent valuations depending on the proposals which are received.In later questioning of the Suburban Land Agency the land price affordability comparison was again put officials by the Committee. The CEO of the SLA told the Committee that:There are a couple of things to note: firstly, product types lend themselves to different blocks of land. Specifically, for the detached houses in Taylor the blocks of land currently on sale are not the ones that have been identified as affordable housing. They are for housing which is generally available to the public, and the prices reflect that. The current land which has been identified as affordable has been selected specifically by the SLA team working with EPSDD and acknowledges the affordable requirement on that land. We have gone out to tender through an expression of interest with the land that has been identified. We definitely see it as possible to build the affordable stock on there, but we also note that it will be challenging. We are going through a process of expressions of interest with the builders to work with them to find the best solution for those blocks.The SLA CEO continued, explaining to the Committee that:If I take an example of the lots that have been identified as affordable housing, we say the top value is $434,000 for a 105-square-metre block. At a build price of about $1,800 per square metre that would reflect a build cost of about $190,000. That leaves about $230,000 for the block of land, which is relatively reflective of the land we have selected to be part of the affordable product. I also say the expression of interest is in its machinations at the moment. However, it was designed to work innovatively with industry to find solutions. I also note that we are working within government to finalise my ability to price land which is reflective of the affordable requirement. In response to your first question, I am confident that we can provide these blocks to support affordable housing in the future.The Committee questioned whether the blocks would be market price and were informed that ‘it may not be if the affordability requirements restrict the highest best use. It will be highest best use taking into account those affordability requirements,’ although they were seeking legal advice on the ability to do that as well as considering alternative options that would enable them to be able to provide the required level of affordable housing.In an answer to a Question Taken on Notice the Minister told the Committee that: The Government understands it can price land to account for the affordability policy requirement and is seeking advice to confirm that position.Recommendation seq NumList 8The Committee recommends that the ACT Government finalise legal advice so that it can act accordingly in relation to valuing land whist also taking into account affordability requirements.Recommendation seq NumList 9The committee recommends that the ACT government ensure that the land sold as affordable land will be reserved for affordable housing and that this is able to be reflected in the price of the land.Urban RenewalUrban Renewal delivers projects that involve multiple policy outcomes. This work includes the identification of key precincts and individual projects, prioritisation of projects based on community need, undertaking feasibility studies and due diligence, and project delivery including demolition and minor works. This work seeks to integrate urban renewal opportunities across Government around defined urban renewal precincts, including within town and group centres and within pockets of established suburbs such as local centres. The Committee discussed the following issues with the Ministers and Directorate Officials:Due diligence on urban projects;Demonstration Housing;Section 72 Dickson – urban renewal process;Section 72 Dickson – lessons learned - community consultation;Demonstration Housing The Committee made reference to the 18 demonstration housing projects and asked a number of questions about the progress to date.The Committee was informed that the demonstration housing project is a two stage process and that the projects were divided into two streams. The Directorate indicated that:We have gone through the first phase where projects have been shortlisted and then, for the with-site stream, we have actually gone through the second stage of the process, where proponents had to submit a detailed submission. They are evaluated through a panel that included the Government Architect. They have also all been required to go through the design review panel and undertake community consultation on their proposal, with EPSDD supporting them in a community consultation by going along and talking about what the demonstration housing project is and giving people an overview of what that is. We have met with both the North Canberra Community Council and the Griffith/Narrabundah Community Association. The challenge for the other bit about the without-site stream has been identifying suitable sites that relate to the particular projects. All the proposals really wanted sites that were located close to facilities, preferably on a light rail line. And of course there are so many of those! We have done quite a substantial piece of work looking at sites that might be suitable for that, where we might be able to subdivide sites, where we might be able to include them within urban renewal projects. We have got to the point where we have a number of sites that are suitable for proponents. We are just finalising the review of the financial criteria the proponents need to go through to see whether their proposal will be suitable for government to sell them land to deliver it. The sites will be valued and each of the proponents will pay market value for that site once their proposal goes through that evaluation process with the panel, as well as then going through the design review panel and community consultation.The Committee then queried the number of projects, with land, in the first stream and were informed that:There were six that were successful through that process and there were another three that were given an opportunity to refine their proposal a bit further and come forward. One of those has withdrawn and another two we expect to come in in the next couple of weeks for the panel to review again.The Committee also queried the timeline for the siteless projects and were informed that:With each of those projects it is not like they are all going to be released at the same time. As we are ready to go out with the request for tender to those proponents, we will. There will be a progressive approach with each of those. It is as the sites are ready to be released and we have done all the due diligence work that we need to do on those sites to confirm that they are suitable for that type of development.Upon being informed that the tender process would only be released in the current financial year, the Committee noted that ‘some groups or some siteless entities are finding it harder to keep going for this period of time, not knowing whether there is going to be any sort of conclusion’ and asked the Directorate to respond to this. They indicated to the Committee that:We are trialling new things, and in the end we will need site-specific Territory Plan variations and we will evaluate the whole project because we need to learn from it. I think one of the things to note is that it would be remiss of us only to learn from the projects that are successful. Those that are put forward and get knocked out on the first stage we are going to learn as much from as we will learn from those that get knocked out on the second stage and then those that do not proceed, because I think we need to work out what are the barriers to delivering this in the territory. I think this is what the Assembly wanted and that is what the response is. What we found, just even at the first stage, was that people thought they had a good idea. But they might have been first-time builders or first-time cooperatives and they really had not thought through the proposals. As you have mentioned, the time is a challenge. The holding costs for those with sites…is a big one. But that would be the same if demonstration housing had not come up and they were looking for redevelopment opportunities. They would then be limited by what is only available in the current planning. So they have come forward to take on a demonstration housing project because they think they can deliver something greater than what would currently be available. I think, yes, there are a few things that we are learning along the way. I think the success will be when we see projects built, delivered and communities accepting that. That will be success, but I think we will learn a lot about what barriers are in place once we move beyond the design competition and actually ask people to put their time, effort and money behind it. So there are lessons being learnt every day on this. The Directorate acknowledge the uncertainty but also indicated that there was a high level of engagement to keep everyone informed:All of the proponents that have been on this journey have been talking to the team every day. But the government, through its support through our directorate, has certainly tried to encourage all of these proponents along the process. The process has been well explained during that time. They have been updated along the way. But no building project is without uncertainty.Recommendation seq NumList 10The Committee recommends that the ACT Government expedites the demonstration housing process so that those projects with sites start the public consultation process this financial year and those without sites are offered sites this financial year.Section 72 Dickson – Urban Renewal ProcessThe Committee asked a number of questions in relation to Section 72 Dickson. During the discussions the Minister informed the Committee that a number of blocks were being looked at for use as part of an estate development. These were block 6, block 22 and block 25. She told the Committee that:Block 6 and block 25 are currently owned by the ACT government. Block 22 is a lease owned by—even though we do not own things in the ACT, to use that language—the Salvation Army. When that process commenced, there was an expectation that the Salvation Army was going to surrender that site to the ACT government as part of its future development. That has not yet occurred. Conversations are ongoing with the Salvation Army in relation to its future plans for that site.The Minister acknowledged there was a diversity of views about how Section 72 should be used however she noted that there were key issues that the community appeared to have near universal agreement on including:…“contains a mix of uses, including new community facilities, in an integrated precinct that better connects and builds on existing uses and services”, “be a safe environment, inviting and permeable with appropriate lighting, passive surveillance and improved connections, especially for pedestrians and cyclists”, “feature attractive and usable green space with existing trees retained to the greatest extent possible, increased urban tree canopy and places for children and families” and “ensure development comprises primarily low to medium buildings up to three to four storeys”.The establishment of a community reference group was suggested by the North Canberra Community Council and this was noted by the Minister who indicated that she was open to the idea. However, the Minister did also indicate that one had not been established as there were still uncertainties about the blocks. She told the Committee that during the next stage of the project one will be established.The Minister indicated that in order to continue with the commitment to Common Ground a Territory Plan Variation was required in order to change the block ‘from CZ6 zoning, which is a commercial zone of leisure and accommodation, to community facility zoned land but with an overlay’. She stated ‘there is currently a Territory Plan variation out for comment—I think community comment on that closed yesterday—in relation only to block 25.’In further discussion on the Territory Plan Variation for block 25 the Minister noted there was some concern that ’the Territory Plan variation for block 25 will provide some kind of authority for other developments that are in some background documents in relation to through roads and the like, that it would require the removal of numerous trees, and so on and so forth.’The Minister sought to reassure the Committee that these concerns were unfounded and that she can see that a great deal of the concern had arisen because it appeared that a proposed road was to go straight though some trees:Some documentation in relation to future planning of the site that was prepared on the basis of one of those draft proposals designed for further engagement with the community did have a through road that would go into the existing green space between block 22, block 28 and block 27 and go into block 26, where the current trees are, between the developable sites and the stormwater drain. The Minister continued, emphasising that:those through roads are not part of the plan for Common Ground. The intention is that road reserves that are part of the Territory Plan variation for block 25 will not be through roads; they will end in turning circles. It is quite clear in a range of the background documentation that that is what is proposed. We have no capacity at the moment to build through roads through block 22. I personally do not support the building of a through road through the treed area of block 26. I will not say “not on block 26 at all” because the southern boundaries of the blocks vary. You can have a straight road along the bottom of block 25, slightly below block 22, within block 26, that would essentially end at the car park. We cannot build a through road into a private car park outside the dance school. But there are numerous options for creating through capacity, either for vehicles or for pedestrians and cyclists. My personal view is that building that road through that current treed area would not be appropriate. And that is absolutely not what the Territory Plan variation would provide authority for.The Committee sought clarification asking the Minister ‘if those roads were there in the Common Ground maps just because of the bigger process’ and the Minister indicated:Yes. That was background material that had been prepared in relation to the bigger process. We postponed or put on hold the community consultation around the estate development plan for section 72 as a whole at a time when that proposal had been developed by some consultants to put on the table to further discuss with the community. That was the latest iteration of that proposal to discuss with the community. We had not had the opportunity to discuss with the community those through roads and the location thereof, so we had not had the opportunity to go back and say, “No, that’s not where we want the through roads. Let’s reconsider that option.” Some technical work was done around the latest iteration of those plans that were part of the community consultation, but those plans do not have any government imprimatur. And, as I have said, I personally do not think that they represent the best option.In the context that the plans may not have any ‘government imprimatur’ but were still government plans the Committee sought further clarification as to what would occur if the plans as distributed were to go ahead and how many trees would be lost as a result. The Directorate indicated that:The short answer is no. The longer answer is that when you ask a road engineer to work out where the road is, they normally just do it straight; they do the simplest road possible. That is their early draft. When you see that it would go through trees, you would go, “Okay, let’s do some work on that.” I think what has happened here is that in our fervour for being open and releasing all of the documentation, what was essentially the first draft of the road engineer has been taken by members of the community as set in stone, as a grand scheme for the removal of a lot of trees. The answer to the question is that we have done a tree survey, but we have not got to the point where we have worked out what the estate development plan would be and then what trees would be removed and what trees would remain. We just were not up to that stage. It is always a challenge when doing community engagement. How much do you release? If you do not release technical reports, there is an accusation that you are hiding something.And when you release an early technical report—which is, as I say, at best a first draft of where you might go—we see, as you say, much community concern about this grand scheme for removing those trees. As the minister said, they were not part of some grand scheme and they were never slated for removal. This community concern is upsetting, I am sure, for the community, but also challenging for us. As I said, in our fervour for being open and transparent, we may have unnecessarily drummed up some community anxiety.The Directorate further emphasised that:If I could just add to that, the minister has made it very clear that those plans have not been endorsed by the government. Equally, and building on Mr Rutledge’s comments, it was not endorsed by the directorate either. It was a body of work that was done by consultants. We did not get to the point of doing the detailed analysis, going back and exploring options, because the engagement for that body of work, as the minister said, ceased at that point in time. It was a body of work that was done. In the normal course, we would have had the planning and urban design team look at that and put that overlay on the engineers’ drawings. We would have done the further work in relation to the trees. We would have looked at alternative options before going back to the community with a range of different options. I just reinforce Mr Rutledge’s point that it was the very first set of drawings prepared by a consultant with a particular skill set.The Committee asked an additional question in relation to the trees and the waste access coming from the creek corridor and were informed that ’the waste access in on the southern side of the site…within block 25’ and does not involve any tree removal.Section 72 Dickson – Lessons Learned – Community ConsultationThe Committee noted that issues that arose as part of the community consultation process for Section 72 Dickson and asked the Directorate what had been learnt from this process. The Minister responded that:You are absolutely right that we are constantly learning lessons about community engagement and how to do it better. Part of the challenge is that each situation is unique…Probably the primary lesson for me out of this is understanding the sensitivity of the community around section 72. We certainly were very well aware of that, but we probably should have had a closer look at those background documents that were being uploaded in relation to the Territory Plan variation. Presumably there was a view that people would understand that these were background documents and that the Territory Plan variation for block 25 stood alone. I think that we could have been clearer earlier that those background documents were to inform the work around Common Ground but were not endorsed documents or future plans. Some of the technical work has informed the development of the Common Ground proposal and the territory planning variation but does not say anything about the future plans for section 72. In retrospect, perhaps we should have picked up earlier that that would become a sensitivity in the community and we should have been on the front foot in addressing that.The observation was made by the Committee that possibly efforts to better engage with the community had made the issues worse but if they had not done that equally frustrating issues would have arisen. The Committee asked the Minister to comment on whether it is ‘just a case of finding the sweet point of how much information we release and when we release it.’ The Minister noted:I think the other thing is, as I said, that in the next stages of the conversation about section 72 in the broad, I have committed to the establishment of a community reference group. We made a decision not to do that while the future of block 22 was uncertain. In retrospect, was that the right decision? Should we have established a reference group which essentially did not meet very often but was a vehicle for keeping people up to date on what was going on and an opportunity for people to have a point where they could come and ask questions? Having said that, people who are raising concerns have a lot of good connections into the area of EPSDD that is responsible for these matters. They can always pick up the phone to those people or to my office if they have questions. But potentially a community reference group would have provided a formal opportunity to update people and provide some further background. Whilst acknowledging the lessons learned, the Minister also made reference to some positive commentary that had been received from the community in relations to the planning for Section 72, particularly:with the Dickson pool forecourt enhancement. That is some temporary work to uplift the Dickson pool forecourt that is being tested over summer. That has been welcomed by the community. That was a response to one of the things we heard from that community engagement around section 72: that the pool forecourt was a pretty dowdy and unattractive place to hang out.It has been pleasing to see that at the same time that people are expressing concern about block 25, they are also expressing appreciation for the work that officials have done around that, which I think has been very much welcomed by the community.Public Housing Renewal ProgramThe EPSDD is responsible for the coordination of the Public Housing Renewal program. Since 2014, the Public Housing Renewal Taskforce has been delivering the biggest upgrade to Canberra’s ageing public housing since self-government in 1989. This program concluded on 30 June 2019.The Committee discussed the following matters with the Minister and Directorate officials:Occupancy;Site selection and limits on number of dwellings;Housing renewal program – community engagement.Site Selection and Limits on Number of DwellingsThe Committee queried with the Directorate whether there had been enough consideration of social connections and connections to services when selecting the sites. In response the Directorate stated that site selection was done:…through expression of interest where we bought in older suburbs as well. Those are where the new developments are. I will go through them. From memory, in Woden we picked up nine; Weston Creek, 36; Tuggeranong, 173; and Belconnen, 94. In the inner suburbs there were probably a dozen there and in Gungahlin, 530. Those in the EOI process, which covered 300 dwellings, are not represented in that map. So the salt and pepper approach has been applied evenly. What we tried to do there for the purpose of the graphics is to show where we had new builds that we did ourselves.In further questioning about this salt and pepper approach the Committee asked about whether there was an upper limit on the number of dwellings in new public housing developments. In response the Directorate stated:Each dwelling was looked at individually. We looked at how many surrounding public housing dwellings there may have been in a particular situation. In answer to your question, no, when we were working with Housing ACT there was not a fixed rate for the number of units. So the upper limit was 32 for some of our units in Taylor. But, yes, that was the maximum but we had a range of different styles and different types.The Minister further indicated that:We were moving from dwellings of 200 individuals to 20 to 30 being sort of the most. What I am hearing from the housing and homelessness sector is that that is probably about the limit you would want to get to with that higher density of people on lower incomes and with complex needs.Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication SchemeThe EPSDD is responsible, through the Asbestos Response Taskforce, for delivering the Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication Scheme.The Committee discussed the following issues with the Minister and Directorate Officials:Outstanding properties – not acquired;Outstanding properties – not demolished;Residents in Properties yet to be acquired;Asbestos Managements Plans – cost;Asbestos Managements Plans – compliance.Residents in Properties yet to be AcquiredThe Committee noted that there were 38 residences that had not yet been acquired by the government and that the majority of residents in those residences are ‘older residents whose desire is to live out their time there and who are probably well aware, even if they were not before the hearings of the royal commission, that any move is likely to be detrimental to their health.’ The Committee queried what the plan was for these residences and were informed that:The next step in what happens after the program is finished is really a decision for government. That is something that cabinet is considering at the moment. We will have more to say; I cannot pre-empt what cabinet will decide. I would like to observe that, in determining the next steps, part of the process has been to work very closely with the people who are still in the homes to understand their circumstances and how they can be best supported to transition out of their Fluffy homes.The Directorate further indicated that:The other important point to note is that, of that 38, we have a number that have signed a surrender deed with the task force. The task force was to run to 30 June 2020. A number of those, particularly the elderly, look to the latest date possible to surrender their property. We have approximately 18 of those properties that will fall into that category, that have that later surrender date: they have opted into the program but will surrender to the task force on 30 June 2020. As you rightly point out, some of the conversations we have had are very much about people dying in place.The Committee noted that it appeared that there were no decision in place as yet and it was affirmed by the Directorate that many residents have ‘have complicated medical needs as it is, and they have strong support networks that exist around them.’ The Directorate indicated that ‘it is all about retaining that support network and getting the best quality of life in later years.Recommendation seq NumList 11The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide adequate support for remaining residents in Mr Fluffy homes, in particular those with medical needs.Asbestos Management Plans - ComplianceThe Committee asked the Directorate how many of the 20 homeowners, who were not part of the later surrender date, have an asbestos management plan (AMP). They were informed by the Work Safety Commissioner that:Of the 38 residential properties, 30 have compliant asbestos management plans. There are seven additional properties—so that is 37—that have asbestos management plans which have not been fully implemented yet. That means that there are some minor works or minor improvements to be made to ensure the medium-term safety of those places. Some of those have not been done. So there are seven we classify as partially compliant; they have an AMP, but it has not been fully implemented yet. There is one property that is non-compliant and does not have an AMP.When it was further queried as to what would be happening with the eight that are either not at all compliant or not fully compliant, particularly in light of the letters sent to them in 2019 outlining the consequences, such as fines and imprisonment, for non-compliance the Work Safety Commissioner noted that:This is about community safety. As we have heard, we are very sensitive to the specific needs of individual householders. We have been working with the task force for a number of years now, liaising, informing, having meetings and communicating with the individual householders. There were a number of householders—just a very small number compared to the whole program—that were not compliant in meeting their community safety needs by having an asbestos management plan. Over the last few years, I have written a series of letters—I think six all up—outlining their responsibilities and encouraging each householder to contact us and talk to our dedicated inspector, who will liaise with them and assist them to be community safety compliant. Most people were compliant with those requests, as it were. There were a small number overall that were not. As part of being completely transparent, we outlined what the legal situation was if they remained non-compliant and the various actions that maybe taken in terms of what we may do.When pressed further about the compliance options of fines and imprisonment he went on to tell the Committee that:There are provisions in the legislation for non-compliance. We identified those sections of the legislation, including the maximum penalties that the legislative provisions provide. To be completely transparent, we did point those out to those householders so that they knew the seriousness of meeting the community safety requirements.Whist assuring the Committee that he didn’t believe that someone would be sent to jail in these circumstances, the Work Safety Commissioner reiterated that:As I said, to maintain complete transparency as to what the legal requirements were and what the maximum penalties were. It would be a matter for the court to decide, if it ever went to court. I would be extremely hopeful that it never would go to court. But if it did, it would be a matter for the court to decide as to what penalty, if any, would be appropriate. In terms of that transparency, we thought it was appropriate that they understood the seriousness of their community safety requirements.Recommendation seq NumList 12The Committee recommends that, as the ACT Government has indicated that it is hopeful that non-compliant Mr Fluffy asbestos matters will not go to court, it takes a more cooperative approach to its communications with Mr Fluffy affected residents and instead focuses on supporting them to be compliant.Suburban Land AgencyIntroductionThe Suburban Land Agency (SLA) was established as a statutory authority under the City Renewal Authority and Suburban Land Agency Act 2017.The SLA is responsible for developing and releasing suburban land, encouraging and promoting urban renewal outside of declared urban renewal precincts, contributing to the growth and diversification of the Territory’s economy, and social and environmental sustainability.The key functions of the SLA as outlined in the City Renewal Authority and Suburban Land Agency Act 2017 are to:buy and sell leases of land on behalf of the Territory;ensure a mixture of public and private housing in new suburbs;increase the supply of affordable and community housing;meet housing targets;carry out development of land in a manner that is environmentally sustainable;exercise our functions in a way that supports statutory greenhouse gas emissions targets and delivers environmentally sustainable development; andfollow and support whole of government strategies.The Committee held a public hearing with Ms Yvette Berry MLA, Minister for Housing and Suburban Development on 7 November 2019 to examine the Suburban Land Agency 2017-2018 Annual Report.The Committee held a public hearing with Ms Rachel Stephen-Smith MLA, Minister for Urban Renewal on 8 November 2019 to examine the Suburban Land Agency 2017-2018 Annual Report – as relates to Urban Renewal Sites.The Committee discussed the following matters with the Minister’s and SLA officials:Coombs Peninsula;Land Sales in SLA Estates;Level of Supply in the ACT;SLA impact on Housing Market;Sales in Throsby;Consultations with Indigenous Community in relation to developments;Ginninderry – Joint Venture Agreement;Ginninderry – Joint Venture Agreement – parties and roles;Ginninderry – Joint Venture Agreement – schedule of rates;Ginninderry – Joint Venture Agreement – equity contributions and commercial returns;Ginninderry – Joint Venture Agreement – loans;Ginninderry – Joint Venture Agreement – profit;Ginninderry – Joint Venture Agreement – risk distribution;Ginninderry – Joint Venture Agreement – management and expenses;Ginninderry – Joint Venture Agreement – NSW land;Crace – Joint Venture Agreement;Denman Prospect Sales;Solar Orientation of blocks in SLA estates;Kingston Arts Precinct – successful tenderer, dwellings, parking;Kingston Arts Precinct – construction impacts and consultation with arts groups, residents and businesses;Belconnen Health Centre Site – demolition;Belconnen Health Centre Site – demonstration housing;Car park near Belconnen Community Centre – plans;Belconnen Water Police Site;Frewin Centre Scullin;Former Ambulance Station, Police Station and Remand Centre sites in Belconnen;Woden CIT site;East Gungahlin and Kenny projects – urban renewal status;East Gungahlin and Kenny projects – future planning;Living Infrastructure implementation;Gold Creek Homestead – status; andGold Creek Homestead – consultation.Kingston Arts Precinct - successful tenderer, dwellings, parkingThe Committee asked Directorate about the current status of the proposed development of the Kingston Arts precinct, including the successful tenderer and the number of dwelling proposed for the site. They were informed by the Minister that ‘Geocon was identified as the successful tenderer, as opposed to the preferred tenderer’ whilst the Directorate indicated that there was no parameter put on the maximum number of dwellings and the proponents were not asked to define the number of dwellings. They explained that this was:predominantly because the definition of the developable site area and the heights within the site are already defined. It was up to the proponents to consider the precinct holistically and think about all the possible uses that can occur on the site that are complementary to the arts precinct and to develop their own opportunities within the residential component.Management of parking during construction was also a concern for the Committee and the Directorate indicated that:Again, as part of the documentation that went to all the proponents, they were asked to think about how parking will be managed during the construction period. Certainly there was a response to that in Geocon’s proposal. We have to remember that the documents were written in 2015 and submissions were made in 2016. Some of the land that was available at the time that could have been used for the purposes of temporary parking has now gone, so new thinking is being put in place on how to tackle that. Geocon are required to demonstrate that as part of their development application proposal. We have not really got to that point as yet, but they are certainly thinking about it and it is a topic for conversation with the community panel and the broader community.The Committee then asked what the net growth or loss of public parking spaces would be and were informed that:To be honest, we would have to do the calculations to answer that question definitively. I can say that the number of car parks available at the moment as surface parking will be replaced one for one. Additional public parking will be made available on top of those numbers which forms part of that 500-space car parking structure. As part of the studies that have been done over time, and taking into account the success of the Old Bus Depot Market on the weekends, in addition to those 500-plus spots the proponent is required to make another 300 available over the weekends.Recommendation seq NumList 13The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide more detail on the number of dwellings anticipated for the Kingston Arts Precinct Development.Recommendation seq NumList 14The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide more detail on the proposed parking arrangements for the Kingston Arts Precinct Development.Kingston Arts Precinct - construction impacts and consultation with arts groups, residents and businessesThe Committee asked Directorate what plans were being developed to ensure that businesses in the Kingston area would not be adversely affected by construction. They were informed that:Certainly there have been a number of initial conversations with businesses as part of the introduction of the project process. Businesses have been invited on to the community panel and they have their representatives on the community panel. Again, the discussions around how the construction will be staged across the site and how the parking laws will be staged are yet to happen. The period we are in right now is establishing strong links and relationships and knowing exactly the people we will need to discuss all those concerns with. The construction will not start for at least another two years, so there is a long period where we can nut out all the details for the best way going forward.Further to this the Committee asked how consultation was occurring with the arts groups and were informed that:We are doing it together with artsACT; they are the conduit to the arts organisations. We have established a regular monthly meeting with all the arts organisations where we brief them on the progress of the project, on the community engagement and on matters that are important to them. In addition to those monthly meetings where all the arts organisations come together, depending on what we are talking about and what solutions we are looking to agree on, they have direct access to the design team. There have been a number of meetings between the design team and both individual arts organisations and groups. We have had quite a bit of interaction with the arts organisations over the last few months.In this context the Committee made further queries as to the level of consultation that has been undertaken with all stakeholders, including arts groups, local residents and businesses and were told that:We have been thinking about this in the context of the arts organisations being a stakeholder and the community groups having a slightly different interest in the project. Certainly at the next community panel artsACT have been invited to discuss the project. Certainly the members of the arts organisations are free to participate in the community engagement process, as members of the community. But we are thinking about the moment where we can bring the two together because it is important for the arts organisations to present themselves and for the broader community to understand what they will bring to the precinct.Recommendation seq NumList 15The Committee recommends that the ACT Government ensure that full and transparent consultation is undertaken with arts groups, local residents and businesses.Land Sales in SLA EstatesThe Committee noted that the SLA Annual Report (p18) indicated that land sales had slowed in SLA estates and that this was due, in part, to increasing competition from other estates. The SLA was asked to elaborate on this and the SLA CEO told the Committee that:we work in a market where we really only have about 50 per cent market share. Some of that competition is coming from estates such as Denman Prospect within the ACT. There are other parts within the ACT with land for sale, but there are also estates across the border that are providing land in competition with the land we provide.He also indicated that fifty percent of buyers are looking to buy from the SLA which means that ‘if demand is around 1,200 blocks of land in a year then we would suspect that about 600 of that would come from the Suburban Land Agency.’When asked how much of the remaining 600 would be purchases in NSW the SLA indicated that:There is no publicly available data for New South Wales so we do not have an equivalent data source to what we get for the ACT…Most of the supply at the moment is actually in non-single residential product so we are competing for a very small pool of people who want to buy residential land. The competitors are, as you probably know, south Jerrabomberra and Googong as well as Denman Prospect. We also have the Ginninderry joint venture, and while we have a 60 per cent interest in that it also takes up some of that demand. It was also indicated to the Committee that:If you look across the market we are seeing two things: one is record levels of supply in greenfields land. We have around 540 blocks for sale at the moment. We think that the competition has somewhere between 200 and 250 blocks for sale. If you add the multi-unit product there is something in the order of 20,000 units either built, being built, in the planning process—that is going through the DA process—or in the hands of developers but yet to proceed down that planning pipeline. That is probably a record for the territory as well; there is a huge amount of supply for a fairly small number of people at the moment.When asked why people would want to buy property over the border the SLA indicated that:The question is what is over the border. South Jerrabomberra is over the border but it is about 18 kilometres from the CBD of Canberra, so it is relatively close. The product they are offering, while it may appear to be slightly cheaper than some of our estates on a per square metre basis, is slightly more expensive because the blocks are smaller. So if you look at that as being over the border, that product will compete with our products. Googong is a lower priced product generally, but it is also 25 kilometres from the CBD. The reality is that it is an urban suburb in a rural setting whereas our estates are sitting in the urban area of Canberra. For example, Throsby, Coombs and Wright are about 11 kilometres from the CBD. Taylor is 17 kilometres away and Whitlam will be about nine kilometres away when the first places go in there. So they are much closer to the heart of Canberra than some of these other estates. Other estates in, say, Murrumbateman or Bungendore are 40 kilometres from the city. They are a long way away and they do not have the service levels offered in central Canberra.Ginninderry Joint Venture Agreement – NSW LandThe Committee asked a number of questions about the delineation of the land involved in the Ginninderry Joint Venture and was informed that in terms of the Ginninderry site ‘the government owns the ACT land and Riverview owns the NSW land.’In an Answer to a Question on Notice the Committee was informed that the breakdown of this land was as follows:Territory Blocks 1605,1606, 1607, 1420, 1586, 1329, 1621, 1622, 1440, 858, 859, 853, 860, 1333, 860,857, 1540 Belconnen Riverview Blocks 1,2,3,7 DP771051The value of the land at the time of signing the joint venture was quoted by the Directorate in an Answer to a Question on Notice as; ACT - $141 million and NSW $221 million.The Committee queried the breakdown of housing types that would be built in the ACT and in NSW and was informed in an Answer to a Question on NoticeThe product mix for Neighbourhood 1 (approximately 1,150 blocks) is approximately 50% detached/ semi-detached housing and 50% integrated housing (Terraces & Multi Unit homes). The lotting plan for the remainder of the Ginninderry Joint Venture is yet to be prepared however consistent with the masterplan for the whole of Ginninderry the indicative split is:?ACT Lands is 60% detached/semi-detached housing and 40% integrated.?NSW Lands is 90%detached/semi-detached housing and 10% integrated.In further questioning the Committee asked about the plans for the rezoning of the NSW land. The Directorate indicated that: The rezoning at this point has progressed significantly through the New South Wales process. It is now with the New South Wales state government to do their final deliberation on it. That said, if it does not proceed, after a period of time the land will revert back to the territory. The territory will essentially get the land for $1. That land enables a huge amount of development within the ACT. Without that land, the territory could not extend its residential development to the border. With the land, we can extend it to the border. It is a significant contribution to the overall development of land in the ACT.The Minister further indicated that:The reason for that, which might not be clear to the committee, is that with the developable land between the ACT and the border, there needs to be a buffer. Under the national capital planning act, there needs to be a buffer with the joint venture partner’s land on the New South Wales side of the border. It gave the opportunity for more land in the ACT to be developable than would have been available had the joint venture partner not had the land on the other side of the border, because of the national capital planning regulations.East Gungahlin and Kenny ProjectsThe Committee asked the Minister as to why east Gungahlin and Kenny were being called urban renewal areas. They were informed that:Essentially, that is because when we talked about the EPIC Kenny urban renewal project, Kenny sits between EPIC, an existing developed site, and Mitchell, an existing developed and long-managed developed site…Harrison obviously is also a developed suburb. At this point, Kenny is now intensification rather than expansion of the suburban perimeter of the ACT. But I think it is a fair point. It is also a greenfield development.In additional questioning the Committee queried the details on investigations for future planning for these sites and what that future would be. The Directorate indicated that:There have been a lot of investigations over many years in relation to the Kenny site in particular. That has primarily been because, as we have done work, it has identified further issues, particularly with the geology of the Kenny area. There has been a lot of ongoing working in that space. In terms of the more recent work that you may be referring to, that is broadening beyond just Kenny itself and looking at those areas that the minister referred to surrounding Kenny. That is providing context. That does include the EPIC area, but that is not about changing the use of EPIC. I need to make that really clear. It is just understanding that Kenny is part of the broader context.The Directorate further indicated that:the Kenny nature reserve was established under the Gungahlin strategic assessment. There have been studies of both the geology and the conservation values of the area. I suppose that the next round of studies has been more specifically around Kenny, what buffer will be required to the nature reserve and where the two would interact. Then I suppose that the next part of the study—this has already occurred—updates all the time. As the city grows, there are a lot of users around EPIC. The growth of Gungahlin has been quite strong over that time. So we are just retesting those. As Mr Ponton said, there are geology studies and also any contaminated sites et cetera. That is the sort of stuff that we are looking at.When you think about urban renewal, it is important to consider what sorts of facilities you need for a growing city. The work that we are doing now really explores that precinct and what the environmental constraints or opportunities might be, what some of the planning constraints and opportunities might be, their uses, the transport access, all of those things that can build a picture that informs any sort of government decision and thinking in the future.The Committee asked the Minister as to why east Gungahlin is the last section in the area to ‘come online’. The Committee were informed that some blocks were ‘because of some of those challenges that we have referred to through those studies around the geology and the environmental values. It has been more challenging to work through those issues in that area’ whilst other blocks were because of ‘staging in terms of when the demand is there for those particular parcels of land.’ The Committee sought further clarification on why the construction had begun further away and towards the town centre, rather than working out from the town centre. The Minister stated that:…it is probably a bit of both because you are building low-rise residential and low to medium density around the outside in building the town centre, but then there will be a limit to the demand for building potentially higher density developments closer to the town centre. There is a limit to the market demand for those, which grows over time, but you need to balance the demand for different types of residential. That would be my guess as to why it has been balanced that way.I also note that the construction of light rail has been a significant project in that area that may have limited the capacity for people to undertake other development work at the same time. That may have also been a factor in the timing of the release.In an answer to a Question Taken on Notice the Minister indicated that:It is assumed that the Member's question relates to the timing of the land release and development of the remaining undeveloped land in Gungahlin town centre, located east of Kate Crace Street, and as such, the answer is as follows:-This area has not been released to date by the Government because the area is reserved exclusively for large scale commercial office development (such as Federal Government departments) by the Territory Plan. The Territory Plan is the key statutory document that guides planning and development in the ACT and this exclusive use was introduced in 2011. Since that time, the town centre has not attracted any large-scale office development for these sites. With the introduction of light rail, the Government has explored new opportunities for this area through the Gungahlin Town Centre Planning Refresh. It is now proposed through Draft Variation to the Territory Plan No. 364 (Gungahlin Town Centre Planning Refresh) to introduce additional uses in this area, including residential, while reserving 65,000m2 for large scale office development. This change has been made in response to new commercial trends and to support the long-term viability and diversity of the Gungahlin town centre. Public consultation on the Draft Variation has recently closed and all submissions are being considered ahead of a Recommended Final Draft Variation being prepared for consideration by the Minister for Planning and Land Management and the Legislative Assembly's Standing Committee for Planning and Urban Renewal. The Draft Variation is anticipated to be referred early in 2020. The Draft Variation has interim effect meaning that the Territory Plan applies as if it had been varied by the Draft Variation. The timing of the final approval of the Variation will be dependent upon whether the Standing Committee chooses to undertake an inquiry. Once this process has been completed, decisions can then be made about the staging of land release for the range of uses permitted by the Variation to the Territory Plan. Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development DirectorateIntroductionThe Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate (CMTEDD) leads the ACT Public Service (ACTPS) working collaboratively with both government and the community to deliver government priorities and drive initiatives aimed at making Canberra a better place to live. As a central agency, CMTEDD:supports the Chief Minister, the directorate’s Ministers and the Cabinet by providing informed and innovative advice; provides support and direction across the ACTPS on policy and strategy; leads the ongoing development of the ACTPS to best deliver to Ministers and the Canberra community including advising on the structure of the ACTPS, ACT public sector employment legislation and conditions, employment, industrial relations and human resource management; drives the evolution of Canberra into a smart and connected digital city, through leading-edge initiatives;improves the liveability and productivity of the city in collaboration with business, education institutions and industry partners;provides strategic financial and economic advice to the ACT Government with the aim of improving the Territory's financial position and economic management;supports government through the provision of financial, information and communication technology (ICT), human resources and procurement services;connects businesses and communities to government through Access Canberra’s ‘one-stop shop’ licensing and regulatory services; andkeeps the Canberra community informed about what government is doing and involves Canberrans in the decisions that impact their lives.The annexed Annual Report of the ACT Architects Board was referred to the Committee for inquiry and report.The Committee held a public hearing on 7 November 2019 to examine the 2018-2019 Annual Report of the ACT Architects Board.Other areas of the CMTEDD 2018-2019 Annual Report were considered by other committees.Architects Board of the ACTThe ACT Architects Board (the Board) is established under the Architects Act 2004. Its role is to ensure registered architects provide services to the public in a professional and competent manner. The ACT Architects Board's functions are to:register architects;investigate complaints given to the Board about registered people and people who have been registered;consider whether it is necessary to take disciplinary action against registered people and people who have been registered and, if it is, to take the necessary action;consider and report to the Minister about issues referred to the Board by the Minister for advice;advise the Minister in relation to the practice of architecture, for example, about codes of professional conduct;further a common and harmonious approach to the administration of legislation about architects by cooperation with local jurisdictions;accredit courses of study in architecture; andprovide general advice to consumers about the professional conduct and standards of competence expected of registered architects. The Committee discussed the following matters with Board officials:Update on the number of registered architects;Number of architects refused registration;Architecture program at University of Canberra;Cost of AACA annual forum;Academic Architect representative position.Academic Architect Representative Position The Committee identified that the academic architect position on the board had been vacant for some time and were advised by the ACT Registrar of Architects that the:…position has been advertised and nominations have been sought. I understand it is in the process of being completed, from a government perspective, with a person identified to be put to the minister for a decision.The Committee were also advised that the role of the academic architect representative enabled the board to better connect with the higher education sector and that the position was usually filled with a person who was an expert on:where the industry is going from an academic perspective and the challenges associated with education—things like emerging technologies that impact the profession… so that the board can understand the challenges faced by the sector but also influence the sector in terms of the areas they should be considering.The ACT Registrar of Architects further stated that:The board sees that position as very valuable to connect the education side to the profession side and also the ability to transition and ensure that people who are completing the qualification take the next step to registration.He also told the Committee that a recent example of their engagement with the University of Canberra, who are the only provider of the architecture program in the ACT, where the recent focus has been on building quality and on ‘pursuing some more hands-on, technical-based program work within the architecture program at UC.’ Recommendation seq NumList 16The Committee recommends that the vacant position of academic architect representative on the ACT Architects Board be filled as soon as practicable.City Renewal AuthorityIntroductionThe City Renewal Authority (CRA) is a Territory Authority established under the City Renewal Authority and Suburban Land Agency Act 2017.As defined in the City Renewal Authority and Suburban Land Agency Act 2017, the CRA’s role is to:encourage and promote a vibrant city through the delivery of design-led, people focussed urban renewal;encourage and promote social and environmental sustainability; andoperate effectively with sound risk management practices to ensure value for money.The Committee held a public hearing with Mr Andrew Barr MLA, Chief Minister on 7 November 2019 to examine the City Renewal Authority 2018-2019 Annual Report.The Committee discussed the following matters with the Minister and CRA officials:Sydney and Melbourne Buildings – maintenance and heritage;Sydney and Melbourne Buildings – engagement with owners;Sydney and Melbourne Buildings – economic revitalisation;Sydney and Melbourne Buildings – waste enclosures;City Centre Marketing and Improvements Levy;City Centre Marketing and Improvements Levy – maintenance component;City Centre Marketing and Improvements Levy – other expenditure;City Precinct Renewal Strategy – consultation;West Basin/Acton Waterfront/City to the Lake;Access to Acton Waterfront;Parkes Way Boardwalk;CRA Consultancy Services;Communication and Engagement versus Design and Strategy Focus;Development Application referrals to CRA;Development Application referrals outside of CRA precinct; andPlace intelligence dashboard,Development Application Referrals to CRAIt was noted that as per the Planning and Development Regulation 2008 the CRA are a formal referral entity for development applications (DAs) within the precinct. The Committee asked what was involved in this referral process and were informed by the CRA CEO that:Under those arrangements with EPSDD, we are obliged when those applications are referred to us to turn our advice around and provide that advice within 15 days. We receive those applications. We provide comments based upon those principles that you talked about earlier, the kinds of objectives that we have particularly around sustainability and high quality design. There are around seven or eight different criteria. We also provide a copy of all of that advice over the two-month reporting period to our board for noting.The Committee further queried what kind of advice was given as part of this process and were informed that:We make suggestions, and they are only suggestions. We are not the decision-maker. But, hand in glove with the DA team, we reinforce the sorts of things that we know the planning directorate are seeking to encourage through those development applications. As I said a moment ago, they really relate primarily to better design outcomes. For example, if we saw a new proposal coming forward with extensive ground floor blank frontage—not contributing to street life—we would ask the architect, and generally the architect and applicant are present together, why it is that we could not actually see a retail tenancy opening up on to the street. They are small but really important suggestions that we are making to applicants to actually achieve a more responsive development outcome and one that contributes, of course, to city renewal.To illustrate the process the Committee was informed by the CRA CEO about the CRA involvement as a referral entity for the Geocon proposal for the hotel in Garema place:In that particular project, we supported the view of the capital design review panel, which was that solar access, particularly during the winter solstice on 22?June, was really important to Garema Place. What was submitted initially as a proposal was a building up to RL617, which is the maximum height. This is a building to the north of Garema Place, precisely where it would potentially result in quite a lot of overshadowing of Garema Place to an excessive extent. Again, through a careful negotiation with the DA team and with the National Capital Design Review Panel, the applicant—in this case Geocon—understood that that was a non-negotiable aspect. They needed to reduce the height of that building in order to ensure that the things that we wanted to protect in Garema Place, including one of the most important aspects—solar access in winter—were recognised and that their design responded to these aspects. The height was dropped. They ended up acquiring additional site and consolidated that site. So it was a similar GFA, similar gross floor area, but a much lower building. Therefore, the impact has been able to be reduced.The Committee then asked what the role of the planning directorate and the community was in all of this. The Chief Minister responded telling the Committee that CRA:…is not a decision-maker but its input is requested. I think that is appropriate. It and a number of other agencies are asked for views in relation to development applications. Given the design expertise both on the board and within the authority selected for that specific purpose, it is appropriate that they are a referral entity. Yes, ACTPLA is the ultimate decision-maker, but I do not think it is unreasonable that there are referral agencies.The Chief Minister continued, defending the ability of the CRA to be a part of the development application process for developments in the City Precinct when other ACT precincts do not have the benefit of a similar authority acting in their interests:Being a referral entity for the handful of development applications that there are each year within the precinct is an entirely reasonable area for the City Renewal Authority to have some function and commitment in. I do not necessarily accept your line of thinking. If you have a different view, you are welcome to that, obviously.Sydney and Melbourne Buildings – Maintenance and HeritageThe Committee noted that the government were looking at developing legislation to ‘force’ maintenance for the Sydney and Melbourne buildings and asked the Chief Minister when and how this would occur. In response, the Chief Minister told the Committee that:The government has indicated a desire to see a change from the status quo in relation to the status of those buildings. We have a process underway to develop legislation in order to enable consistency in terms of the work that is undertaken in and around the precinct, both publicly funded work and requirements for the private owners. In a very practical sense, it could mean adherence to a consistent colour scheme. If you walk around the buildings, you will note that is not currently the way that individual owners are approaching the situation. Some people go to a lot of effort to repaint, but in a slightly different colour to other parts of the building. That is one very practical manifestation of what we are seeking to achieve. An early precursor to this has been the work the authority has undertaken around the shared waste enclosures. That involved a considerable amount of consultation and engagement.In light of recent government investments in the public areas immediately adjoining the buildings…there is a need now to turn our attention to a collaborative arrangement with the private owners, some of whom are already undertaking renewal projects and work. We work very closely with the property owners and we are currently developing legislation. It will not be appearing in the Assembly for a little while yet, but it is my intention to proceed with that in 2020. The Committee then queried the nature of the proposed legislation and its relationship with the Heritage Act, and were informed that:All of those issues are to be finalised through a cabinet process, so I will not pre-empt all of that. We are looking at the range of options. We are probably leaning more towards discrete Sydney and Melbourne buildings legislation, as opposed to seeking to expand that beyond those two buildings. Then there are provisions within the Heritage Act that can be drawn upon. But it may be that the best approach is to undertake a legislative intervention through the City Renewal Authority legislation.In further explaining the reasons for having a tailored piece of legislation for the Sydney and Melbourne buildings and no other sites of heritage significance, the Chief Minister told the Committee:These specific buildings, original Canberra buildings, are iconic and, in and of their own right, have a unique set of circumstances. Therefore, I think it will require a unique and tailored piece of legislation. But we are not yet concluded in our processes in relation to that, so I am not going to pre-empt anything today other than to say that we have put this on the agenda, we have sought to engage over a number of years now, and there are specific individual projects that have been completed and will soon be operational. Sydney and Melbourne Buildings – Waste EnclosuresDuring the hearing, reference was made to the ongoing issue of installing waste enclosures in Odgers Lane (Melbourne Building) and Verity Lane (Sydney Building). The Chief Minister was asked when they would be operational. In response, he stated that it would be this month, following the conclusion of existing waste agreements. He explained there would be a 28 day transition period.The CRA Chief Operating Officer stated that the 28 day transition period is enable transition from existing waste arrangement to the new waste arrangements and the Committee was informed that:work is ongoing at present and collections under the new arrangement are scheduled to begin on 1 December. The transitional arrangements are underway, where JJ Richards are working with business owners to transition the waste arrangements, and then operations commence in December. There is a licence agreement with JJ Richards to operate the waste enclosures and then they establish individual relationships with each of the businesses.The Committee queried why the process up until this stage had taken so long, at least 12 months and were informed that it was because there ‘were 102 different waste arrangements that had to be worked together into a final outcome.’ They were also told by the CRA CEO that negotiations had also been difficult and complex:We are trying to do something that has not been done in Civic before. One of the reasons we are persisting with this is that in many of the other sections within Civic you have those similar territory-land courtyard arrangements, where you have businesses literally dumping rubbish in those central spaces. If we get this right we are confident that we can roll out a similar arrangement for other parts of Civic. At the moment, having six contractors and garbage trucks constantly going in and out is just not sensible.The CRA CEO continued, telling the Committee that:At the moment we have a number of bins and quite a large number of bins stored on public land space in the laneways. The waste enclosures are a solution to that, provided by ACT government. Instead of storing it ad hoc around the lanes, there is this facility which people can opt in to. Businesses can choose not to opt in. Every business is entitled to opt in in those buildings, but businesses can choose not to. If you have the physical capacity to store waste on your premises then that arrangement is completely up to you.Whist telling the Committee that the program is in the first instance a 12 month trial the CRA CEO advocated that these waste enclosures would go some way to preventing illegal dumping and would encourage better practices in terms of recycling. The CRA Chief Operating Officer of stated that the rationale is to …reduce the total number of bins by having the shared facility for those who opt in. There are the efficiencies, through reducing the number of bins, of having a single daily pick-up rather than Cleanaway and JJs all coming in at various different times. There is the attempt to gain some efficiencies by pooling the product, through the waste enclosures, to reduce the number of bins in total, reduce the frequency of collection and the challenges with access and egress in that environment and an opt-in arrangement. That is the rationale for the trial, which we will be looking at.Later in discussions the CRA was asked why the costing for the waste enclosures had increased by $100,000 and were informed that:When they were digging the foundations, they came across Icon assets in the form of a high voltage electricity cable which had not appeared on any previous plans of where the utilities were, and also a sewer connection. The facility has to be able to be washed down, and that has to go straight to the sewer, not to the stormwater course.Recommendation seq NumList 17The Committee recommends that at the conclusion of the waste enclosure program 12 month trial, the City Renewal Authority consider expanding the program to include other areas of Civic.Recommendation seq NumList 18The Committee recommends that at the conclusion of the waste enclosure program 12 month trial, the City Renewal Authority expand the program to trial the collection of food waste for composting.City Centre Marketing and Improvements Levy (CCMIL)The Committee had a number of queries about the City Centre Marketing and Improvements Levy (CCMIL). In the first instance they asked the CRA CEO what levy payers believed were the key issues. In response he stated that:The key issue for levy contributors, who often remind me that it is their money—which it is not—is that they want to see, understandably, a return on the investment, so to speak. They are very engaged and they want to make sure that the way in which we are committing the funds is having a real cause and effect relationship, with improved retail sales and improved economic vibrancy within the city.When asked to elaborate further about what traders were saying, the CRA CEO indicated that:We are certainly hearing from traders that they want us to attract more people to the precinct; there is no doubt about that. We do not want the Canberra city centre to be the best-kept secret. We want it, of course, to be a place so that when people do visit Canberra, when they come for a major event like Floriade or Enlighten, they also increase their night stays and say, “We’ll go and explore the city centre. We’ll go and explore the city centre precinct.” We recognise, as does Invest Canberra, who we have been talking to about this particular idea, the need to help position the city centre as a very attractive visitor destination.The Committee was informed that levy payers were consulted on their priorities for expenditure of CCMIL funds with thirteen surveys completed online and 15 people attending the workshop.In an Answer to a Question on Notice the Chief Minister affirmed that:The priorities identified by levy payers for the expenditure of CCM IL 2019-20 funds were: place management (cleaning, maintenance, place presentation}, vibrant streets (includes provision of high quality street furniture, planter boxes and green spaces and minor capital works), and City Grants.Results from the consultation were an important consideration in the planning of the 2019-20 CCMJL budget. The three top priorities identified by levy payers received significant funding in the 2019-20 CCMIL budget:ProjectBudgetPercentage of BudgetPlace Management$808,00028%Partnerships and Events$670,00023%Vibrant Streets$507,00018%City Grants$348,00012%Communications and Engagement$331,00012%Safer Communities$113,0004%Performance and Accountability$100,0003%In expanding on the noted priorities, the CRA CEO told the Committee that the priority of cleaning and place management was:…why we have put in place the new place management arrangements, with a dedicated team in the levy collection area. They were very keen to ensure that Civic remained a safer place. That is why the levy has contributed to the pre-existing program around taxi ranks and the way in which we can provide a safe night environment for people coming in to Civic. In terms of capital improvements, the CRA CEO told the Committee that the focus was:…particularly in places like Braddon, where the streetscapes and the condition of the public environment were quite variable. The combination includes what I would say is the physical aspect. Certainly, there is the presentation of Civic and the way in which those actions might contribute to greater footfall. When asked whether there would be any changes to the levels of funding and what the funding is allocated to, the CRA CEO stated:We have had feedback from a small group of traders, particularly in the Braddon area, who have indicated that they would like to see greater benefits flowing to that particular part of the levy area. We have heard that loud and clear, and we have decided to form an advisory group of levy contributors. We put out terms of reference for that advisory group, which would meet at least four times a year to help advise me and my team in relation to those very priorities. We realise we have to keep the lines of communication open at all times with the levy contributors, and this is one way in which we can ensure that we are listening. If those levy contributors have suggestions or ideas for how the impact of the levy, for them as business and commercial property owners, can be improved, certainly we are listening to that. I think this advisory committee arrangement will go a long way to demonstrating our commitment to that. We prepare an annual performance statement which we distribute to all levy contributors, so we are very open in terms of what we believe we are achieving with the funding that comes through. West Basin/City to the Lake/Acton WaterfrontThe Committee queried why there was a naming change for the waterfront precinct at West Basin and was informed by the Chief Minister that the West Basin terminology is more applicable to the body of water whilst the Acton Waterfront is the more appropriate terminology for the land.The Chief Minister also indicated that it is not called City to the Lake either as:Certain issues that were being actively considered as part of city to the lake—most particularly the relocation of the Civic pool to the Acton waterfront, which, before Mr Fluffy, was going to be a project that would happen within the next five years—were delayed. He went on to explain that:The authority, through its board, and Mr Snow and his team have undertaken some further work in relation to the Acton waterfront precinct and government has made some further decisions in relation to land release and transport provision since 2013. The city to the lake concept, as it was 15 years ago in its initial Griffin legacy manifestation under the Howard government and their National Capital Authority-led changes to the National Capital Plan that then flowed through into the Territory Plan, has evolved beyond that now to the work the City Renewal Authority has undertaken. Also in that period the planning authority undertook further work in relation to the city precinct and it has been the responsibility of the City Renewal Authority since its establishment to coordinate those planning legacy works, together with a realistic forward infrastructure plan based upon the territory’s infrastructure needs and land release programs. That is why it is not called city to the lake anymore—it has a broader remit. The core philosophy of bringing the city to the lake remains; those principles and ideas remain, but their application is on a different timetable, as a result principally of Mr Fluffy but also of subsequent decisions as they relate to, for example, stage 2A of light rail, the raising of London Circuit to an at-grade intersection and various land release decisions, as well as decisions from the commonwealth in relation to their designated land. They have all impacted on both the 2004 work and the 2011-13 work in relation to city to the lake. The Committee asked about the status of negotiations for West Basin, and were advised in an Answer to a Question on Notice that:Officials from Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate are in regular communication with officials from the National Capital Authority and the Department of Finance on a range of matters relating to land across the ACT. West Basin is one of the subject sites as pa rt of those discussions.In additional questioning about the timeline for completion of West Basin the Directorate indicated in an Answer to a Question on Notice that:Stage 1: Henry Rolland Park was completed in April 2018. The final project cost was $13.356 million (Ex GST). Stage 2 land reclamation, lake wall construction and boardwalk extension. This stage has been appropriated $ 37.4 million (Ex GST). Progression of these works is dependent upon the successful resolution of the land ownership. Future Stages are not funded and are subject to the City Renewal Authority Board consideration of the West Basin Review. The Review is programmed to be completed by June 2020.City Precinct Renewal Strategy – ConsultationThe Committee were told that the community was involved in creating the precinct renewal strategy via combination of surveys and workshops and when asked how they had contributed, the CRA CEO stated:Specifically, there was a dedicated workshop over a day. We invited a number of industry sector, not-for-profit and community groups to join us to help to confirm what we had seen and read through previous engagements around renewal. We provided them with that information and asked them, as a representative cross-section of the Canberra community, what they wanted to see with renewal. That led on to us talking to them about the components of the renewal program—whether they thought they were the priorities for them as a representative group; whether there were other ideas that they would like to see explored, particularly around those early priorities for renewal. There was quite an extensive engagement process, and we continue to maintain a strong engagement with those community groups, particularly through workshops and presentations, and by reporting back against the progress we are making against the implementation of that program.The Committee asked the CRA to expand on the six themes that contributors felt were key to the renewal of the city:One of the very first things we did was to look at all of the previous engagements that had been conducted where renewal was a focus of the feedback that government was looking for. We looked at 30,000 different responses that had been received in relation to similar community engagements. We found, when we analysed those 30,000 different submissions that had come over that period of time, that six themes emerged quite strongly in relation to sustainability, economic revitalisation and the physical condition of the city. There was really strong affirmation through that consultation that those were the sorts of themes. As I said a second ago, that was reaffirmed through the more focused work we did, both in relation to the workshop and in the online engagement.When asked about the numbers of those involved in the CRA consultation the Chief Minister in an Answer to a Question Taken on Notice indicated that:Early in 2018 the Authority reviewed 15 years of community consultation, both by government and some by third parties that were publicly available. We summarised the results of 30,000 pieces of feedback into six key themes, which we then took to the broader comm unity through a YourSay consultation that ran from May to June. During the YourSay consultation we received nearly 2000 visits to the program consultation page, resulting in 136 contributions. The Authority used the results from the YourSay engagement, along with the summary of previous engagements, to inform a workshop with a number of stakeholders. Representatives from 40 government, private sector and community organisations were invited to take part in the workshop, of which 27 attended. A summary of findings from the workshop are available on the YourSay page (yoursay..au/precinct-renewal-program). ConclusionThe Committee has made 18 recommendations in this report relating to a broad range of topics.The Committee would like to thank ACT Government Ministers and directorate officials for their contribution this this inquiry.Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLAChair25 March 2020Appendix A - Witnesses7 and 8 November 2019Mr Andrew Barr MLA, Chief Minister; TreasurerMs Yvette Berry MLA, Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentMs Rachel Stephen Smith MLA, Minister for Urban RenewalMs Suzanne Orr MLA, Minister for Employment and Workplace SafetyMr Mick Gentleman MLA, Minister for Planning and Land ManagementMr Ben Ponton, Director-General, EPSDDMr Geoffrey Rutledge, Deputy Director-General, Sustainability and the Built Environment, EPSDDMs Lea Durie, Acting Executive Branch Manager, Urban Renewal, EPSDDMr John Dietz, Chief Executive Officer, Suburban Land Agency Mr Tom Gordon, Executive Director, Development Delivery, Suburban Land Agency Mr Nicholas Holt, Executive Director, Built Form and Divestment, Suburban Land AgencyMs Irena Sharp. Development Director, Urban Projects, Development Delivery, Suburban Land AgencyMr Neil Bulless, Deputy Chief Executive OfficerMr Joey Lee, Chief Financial Officer, Suburban Land AgencyMr Bruce Fitzgerald, Executive Group Manager, Urban Renewal, EPSDDMr Greg Jones, Director, Executive Branch Manager, Workplace Protection, Access Canberra, CMTEDDMr Ben Green, Executive Branch Manager, Construction and Utilities, Access Canberra, CMTED; ACT Registrar of ArchitectsMr Malcolm Snow, Chief Executive Officer, City Renewal AuthorityMr Craig Gillman, Chief Operating Officer, Business Operations Officer, City Renewal AuthorityDr Erin Brady, Deputy Director-General, Land Strategy and Environment, EPSDDMr George Cilliers, Acting Executive Director, Merit and Estate Assessment and Deed Management Assessment, EPSDDMr Craig Simmons, Chief Operating Officer, EPSDDMs Alix Kaucz, Senior Director, Territory Plan, Planning, Land and Building Division, EPSDDAppendix B – Questions taken on Notice/Questions on NoticeQuestions taken on Notice – 7 and 8 November 2019No.Hearing dateAsked byDirectorate/PortfolioSubjectAnswer date17/11/19COECMTEDD CRAHow much is being spent on cleaning/maintenance?11/11/201927/11/19PETTERSSONCMTEDD CRAWho were the stakeholders at the renewal workshops and how many were engaged online?11/11/201937/11/19COECMTEDD CRA$128k for performance and accountability this financial year – what is this money being spent on11/11/201947/11/19COECMTEDD CRACleaning and maintenance – when did the maintenance expenditure increase?11/11/201957/11/19COEEPSDDWork by the ACT Government, Planning Directorate, and the Minister, towards the outcomes of the Ginninderry Joint Venture (particularly as this relates to cross-border re-zoning issues concerning the lobbying of the NSW Government and the Yass Valley Council)27/11/201967/11/19PETTERSSONEPSDDGungahlin Town Centre planning refresh22/11/201977/11/19CHEYNEEPSDDAdvertising trucks in Belconnen on streets/nature strips26/11/201987/11/19CHEYNEEPSDDSince the establishment of the Billboards Working Group how many times has it met?19/11/201997/11/19PARTONEPSDDCFMEU/hoarding/building sites19/11/2019107/11/19LE COUTEUREPSDDDetails on the planning work done (e.g. roads/transport from NSW) for Ginninderry21/11/2019117/11/19KIKKERTEPSDDDetails about the contraction of electric towers near a residential development in Holt21/11/2019127/11/19COEEPSDDAffordable housing threshold—why are blocks in Taylor being sold for so much, how can they be affordable? How’s the affordable housing program going?19/11/2019137/11/19COESLAHow many blocks in Throsby that were passed-in at auction and how many of them are now available over the counter? 27/11/2019147/11/19COESLAWhat previous experience does Riverview have in land development?27/11/2019157/11/19COESLAHow much of the developable area of Ginninderry in the Act did Riverview own?21/11/2019167/11/19COESLAWhat are the options to permit the SLA to legally provide blocks below market value for affordable homes?25/11/2019178/11/19PETTERSSONSLA/RSS(East Gungahlin discussion). In terms of staging, why would you build further away from the town centre and work your way in, as opposed to your way out from the town centre. It seems like reverse staging.16/12/2019Questions on Notice - related to hearings of 7 and 8 November 2019No.Asked byDirectorate/PortfolioSubjectAnswer date1Ms Le CouteurCMTEDD / CRA / Chief MinisterIn relation to: Future Civic Public Transport Interchange 25/11/20192Ms Le CouteurESPDD / Minister for Planning and Land ManagementIn relation to: Apartment Guidelines, ref: discussion in committee hearing, p74 & onwards of uncorrected proof transcript22/11/20193Ms Le CouteurESPDD / Minister for Planning and Land ManagementIn relation to: Concessional LeasesRegarding: DAs to deconcessionalise leases. 22/11/20194Ms Le CouteurESPDD / Minister for Planning and Land ManagementIn relation to: Coombs Peninsula04/12/20195Ms Le CouteurEPSDD / Minister for Urban RenewalIn relation to: Section 72 Dickson Urban Renewal proposals19/12/20196Mrs JonesESPDD / Minister for Planning and Land ManagementRef: EPSDD Annual report, page 39.In relation to: The Molonglo Commercial Centre Territory Plan Variation28/11/20197Mrs JonesESPDD / Minister for Planning and Land ManagementRef: EPSDD Annual report, page 18, Strategic Objectives and Indicators.In relation to: The Red Hill Integrated Plan and the proposed Federal Gold Club development.13/12/20198Mrs KikkertESPDD / Minister for Planning and Land ManagementEnvironment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, 2018–19 Annual Report, output class 1.2 Planning and Building Policy, pp. 39 and 258In relation to construction of transmission towers for the ACT Second Electricity Supply Project between Ginninderra Estate and the Belconnen Magpies Golf Club, Holt10/02/20209Ms CodyCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority - staffing04/12/201910Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual Report In relation to: video content 04/12/201911Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual Report In relation to: promotional material 04/12/201912Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual Report In relation to: community engagement and social events04/12/201913Mr CoeESPDD / Minister for Planning and Land ManagementRef: EPSDD Annual Report, Output 4.1, Land Strategy In relation to: Strata Laws19/12/201914Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual ReportIn relation to: Land Release10/12/201915Mr CoeESPDD / Minister for Planning and Land ManagementRef: EPSDD Annual Report, Output 4.1, Land Strategy In relation to: ACT Land and Property Report19/12/201916Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: West Basin04/12/201917Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority In relation to: video content 03/12/201918Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: Street furniture03/12/201919Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: promotional material 04/12/201920Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: community engagement and social events03/12/201921Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy (CCMIL) – Vibrant Streets03/12/201922Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy (CCMIL) – Underspend03/12/201923Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy (CCMIL) – Surveys04/12/201924Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy (CCMIL) – Maintenance and Place Management03/12/201925Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy (CCMIL) – Communications03/12/201926Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy (CCMIL) – Business Plans03/12/201927Mr CoeCRA / Chief MinisterRef: City Renewal Authority Annual Report In relation to: City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy (CCMIL) – Breakdown of 2019-20 initiatives 03/12/201928Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual Report In relation to: Riverview and Ginninderry – Payments and loans13/01/202029Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual Report In relation to: Riverview and Ginninderry – Marketing and sale of land13/01/202030Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual Report In relation to: Riverview and Ginninderry – Financial and other matters04/02/202031Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual Report In relation to: Riverview and Ginninderry - Deeds of agreement13/01/202032Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual Report In relation to: Riverview and Ginninderry – ACT and NSW13/01/202033Mr CoeSLA / Minister for Housing and Suburban DevelopmentRef: Suburban Land Agency Annual Report In relation to: Riverview and Ginninderry – Project management, incentives and board13/01/2020 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download