Postal Address: PO Box 3701 Weston Creek ACT 2611

Phone: 6288 8975

Fax: 6288 9179

E-mail: info@wccc.com.au

Website www.wccc.com.au

Jeff Carl, Chairperson, WCCC welcomed the WCCC Committee, guest speakers and residents. The guest speakers are from ACT Forests, Dave Jamieson, Neil Cooper and Rebecca Blundell and from Planning and Land Management (PALM) Keith Burnham.

Mr Carl advised an unidentified gentleman to refrain from distributing unsolicited material at a WCCC meeting. The gentlemen asked Mr Carl to explain. Mr Carl advised that we do not allow people to distribute material (which had not been cleared or agreed with the convenor of a meeting) at a meeting if you are not the convener. The Secretary clarified the position by explaining that the convenor of a meeting, which is the organisation or person calling the meeting, was responsible for the material distributed at a meeting. An exception to this is the distribution of material in the ‘declared period’ before an ACT Legislative Assembly Election where the material is required to have the responsible persons details on the material.

Mr Carl welcomed the first speaker Mr Dave Jamieson. An attendee interrupted and asked when the minutes of the previous meeting would be debated. Mr Carl asked the gentleman’s name and after the reply of, Andy Millar, President Weston Creek Community Association, Mr Carl responded indicating that the WCCC extended the courtesy to guest speakers that general business was conducted after the guest speaker had given their presentation and taken questions.

NIL

Mr Jamieson indicated that he managed Environment and Recreation in ACT Forests, Neil Cooper managed Plantation activities and Rebecca Blundell manages silviculture.

Weed control, after pine tree harvesting, on Narrabundah Hill behind Duffy was an issue of concern to residents and an options paper was released in December 2001 and 1 public submission was received. ACT Forests agreed at previous WCCC meetings (most recently Nov 2001) to come back to the community to discuss their findings. Independent trials were held and because of these findings 4 options were able to be considered - the option selected did not involve aerial spraying but spot applications.

The ACT Commissioner for the Environment investigated the use of chemicals by ACT Government agencies for weed control. There were 6 recommendations, which referred to the practices of ACT Forests. Generally the tasks are undertaken by ACT Forests are according to the use of the material, however there needed to be greater public notification in conjunction with the EPA and the Agricultural Veterinary Co-ordination Network (AVCCN).

Neil Cooper indicated that ACT Forests was undertaking integrated pest management although this was probably not well explained to the public. There was close spaced planting to control weeds, chopping-roller to crush material and deep ripping and mounding to reduce weeds. The Commissioner's report focussed on poor reporting of integrated pest management and ACT Forests were working to improve their communication to explain their practices.

Rebecca Blundell described the application mechanism of spot application of the control chemical with a practical demonstration of the applicator. The spot application was through a weed-a-meter, which was developed by the New Zealand Forest Research Institute. The active constituent of Velmac CR is 150g of Hexazinone per kilogram of Velmac CR. The details are in attachment A to these minutes.

Mr Carl asked if there were any questions.

• A representative of the Southern ACT Catchment Group asked about the burnt forest adjacent to the Tuggeranong Parkway -what is happening to the land? ACT Forests will replant the land to the west of the Parkway, the National Capital Authority (NCA) controls the land to the east and ACT Forests are assisting in clearing the land. The decision on its use has not been confirmed but it may be returned to native eucalypt forest.
• A resident asked about the impact of forestry operations on the economy of the ACT. The direct impact is estimated at $300m and there are 350 employees and contractors as well as 3 local mills.
• Why does the chemical not kill the pine tree if it is applied over the top of the tree? The design of the chemical is that it does not affect pinus species, it will impact on weeds but not trees.
• A resident asked when would the work start? It was indicated that re-planting would start this week and this would take several weeks. The moisture level in the soil was a consideration in the application of the chemical and this was scheduled for early September.
• A questioner asked whether the ACT Commissioner for the Environment report affected all ACT Government agencies and private businesses in Canberra. It appeared that it would affect practices by all ACT Government agencies and their contractors. Contractors working for the ACT would need to be trained in applying chemicals and ACT Forests' staff would be trained in the managing of contractors who were using chemicals.
• ACT Commissioner for the Environment Dr Joe Baker was in the audience and stood to speak on his agency’s report. He indicated that the ACT Forests staffs’ overview of the report and its impact was well described and the practices of other ACT Government agencies would be affected by the findings. In addition he hoped that the local private sector would adopt improved practices in the use of chemicals.
• A resident indicated that he had read in overseas reports that Hexazinone was of concern in waterways and did ACT Forests use heavy metals based fertilisers? The reply was that chemicals were not used in restricted buffer zones around waterways. The fertilisers used were inorganically based but local soils did need boron. Some high heavy metal content fertilisers had been sourced from South America but had not passed stringent Australian Government controls and were not imported into Australia.

A resident of Holder congratulated ACT Forests as an organisation, and especially the staff who had given their time to talk to the Weston Creek community on many the occasions and to listen to the concerns.

Mr Carl thanked Dave Jamieson, Neil Cooper and Rebecca Blundell for their willingness to talk to the community.

Mr Carl introduced Keith Burnham from PALM who would provide the residents in attendance with an overview of DV 200.

Mr Burnham provided the meeting with material relating to the DV 200. The overview/introduction of the intent of DV 200 was provided (this is attachment B to these minutes). The full draft variation can be seen on the PAM website. Mr Burnham indicated that the Labor Party had a mandate to manage redevelopment and infill in suburbs and had an interim arrangement of a 5% limit in place. The DV being discussed replaces the 5% limit when it expires on 5 Dec 2002.

The public submissions received in the discussions on ActCode2 were a basis of the new DV 200. The aim being to avoid random redevelopment, provide a strategic framework for redevelopment and manage the ‘bulk of buildings’. Issues, which were being addressed, included the issue of water percolation, what is a defined urban area and the scale of dual occupancies – the new building being smaller that the original i.e. it needs to be of ‘scale’. In addition dual occupancies were not to have separate title.

There are also changes to the design and siting guidelines as well as building height and setback distances. Permeable area would be set at 50% and this was a different way of approaching the plot ratio. The transition date would be 1^st September and dual occupancies before 6 Dec can be dual title.

Mr Burnham said there were a few dual occupancies in Weston Creek but not nearly to the extent of inner north and inner south Canberra. Not many houses have been demolished and changed to dual occupancies in Weston Creek. Submissions on DV 200 are welcome to 29 July 2002.

Mr Carl asked if there were any questions.

• What is the impact on community zoned land? The DV200 only affects land zoned residential in urban areas.
• What does the 50% permeable area mean? This means that the ‘private open space’ on a residential block needs to be 50% and it is a different way of tackling plot ratios (which have being going up) as they count gross floor area and this is impacted by multi storey developments.
• Do dual occupancies have different rules? Dual Occupancies have a plot ratio of 35% and this will be affected by the DV 200.
• What will happen regarding issue of shading of houses? The DV 200 recommends that the rear of adjoining blocks receive full sun and efforts made to avoid shading adjoining blocks.
• A resident commented that the term Bush Capital was a well known term but 'Garden City' - this is a new one.
• A resident, who identified himself as local architect, raised the issue of the speed of PALM administrative processes in the time from lodgment to approval. Mr Burnham indicated that he could not comment on specific cases but would follow up where he could.

Mr Carl thanked Mr. Burnham for the presentation and advised residents that Mr Burnhan had left copies of DV 200 for residents to collect. If there were insufficient, the document was available on the PALM website.

Mr Carl asked residents if there were any questions in respect on the monthly minutes from the May 2002 meeting. Mr Millar asked about the paragraph in the minutes concerning a list of assets and facilities in the Weston Creek district; namely "Another resident indicated that due to the debate on the availability of facilities in Weston Creek, which had arisen in many of the discussions through the evening, that perhaps an inventory of available facilities needs to be undertaken and be publicly available." Mr Millar indicated that in his reading of the minutes they showed no discussion of assets and facilities and if there was such a discussion why was it not minuted. Mr Carl responded by advising that the discussion had in fact taken place and was minuted. He referred to the paragraph "The discussion of the meeting centred on the need for the ADU to be collocated with an existing school. Perhaps the use of part of the old Holder Primary School (which has CHADS as a part tenant) could be considered as an alternative site or perhaps rooms in the Grant Cameron Centre." Mr Carl also reiterated that the discussion on facilities and assets was in respect of a lack of knowledge for the options to be considered for the ADU. Mrs Pat McGinn identified herself as the resident who had suggested that a list of facilities would be useful to assist in discussions such as the Montessori School and the Adolescent Day Unit.

Mr Millar then raised the issue of a reporter’s commentary in a local paper. Mr Millar indicated that he wished to quote from the article "pressure for the open tender process was delivered by the Weston Creek Community Council. WCCC chairman Jeff Carl said it had been an on-going issue for the council for the past several months".

A resident interrupted indicating that you should not believe everything you read in the paper which is written by a reporter. Mr Carl agreed that the WCCC had applied pressure on the Government to reveal what community leases were becoming available and to ensure open and transparent processes were applied to their renewal. Mr Carl also stated that ‘it [lease availability] had been an on-going issue for the council for the past several months’.

Mr Millar indicated that he had read the minutes of the last 12 months and could find no details of the approaches claimed.

The Secretary indicated that land, assets, and facilities of interest for lease had been raised by individuals and organisations with the WCCC and are minuted. A few were cited (this list is provided for completeness):

• Holder and Rivett Shops - lease of empty shop space (June 01)
• Lease variation of the land of ex-Holder Service Station (Jul 01)
• Waramanga Parks and Gardens Depot lease for Weston Creek Soccer Club (Jul 01)
• Lease changes of land for carparks to improve traffic flow near Stromlo High / Veterinary Hospital (Jul 01)
• Arawang Primary School carpark extension -what type of lease -managed by whom?(Jul 01)
• Land release and leases in North Duffy / Holder (Sept 01)
• Joint Emergency Service Centre lease of land in Woden Valley (Sept 01)
• Orana School Weston, lease of adjacent ACT Forest land (Oct 01)
• Mirinjani Retirement Village progress on the Village acquiring the vacant block of land adjacent to its current lease (Oct 01)
• Felled ACT Forest land cnr Streeton Drive and Cotter Road - the land is zoned ‘community use’ for its lease which covered broad acre low impact uses (Feb 02/ Mar 02)
• Potential use of the land adjacent to the Grant Cameron Centre (the school oval of the closed Holder High School). The intention is to build a Montessori school on a new land lease (Feb / Mar02)
• Transfer of the Adolescent Day Unit from Lyneham Primary School to Weston Creek Primary School to lease the ex-dental care unit in the Weston Primary (Mar 02)
• Canberra Montessori School lease part of an empty or under utilised schools in Weston Creek, perhaps, Rivett, Weston, ex-Holder Primary or parts of the ex-Holder High? (Mar 02)
• Purchase of the lease of the disused Serbian Club in Liardet Street Weston - plans for the site (Mar 02)
• The Sikh Association considering a land parcel for a community lease at block 15 in Hickey Place Weston (Apr 02).
• The lease of a building for the Adolescent Day Unit - the use of part of the old Holder Primary School (which has CHADS as a part tenant) or rooms in the Grant Cameron Centre (May 02).

Mr Millar also asked why the WCCA facilities had not been listed with other venues on the WCCC website. The Secretary indicated that an article was in a WCCC flyer (Nov 2001) distributed to 8500 residences and 200 businesses in Weston Creek, it was also in several recent electronic newsletters of the WCCC asking for facility managers, if they wished, to have details listed on the WCCC website. Neither staff nor committee members of the WCCA responded to the offer. Mr Millar's follow-up question was why was a phone call not made, the response from the Secretary was that the WCCC was not soliciting for website content through a telephone campaign.

Mr Carl then asked for a proposer to accept the minutes. Proposed: Mrs Pat McGinn seconded Mrs Sue Liebke.

Mr Carl advised the meeting that correspondence had been received from the Planning Minister Simon Corbell MLA advising that the Minister is recommending a grant of a lease by direct sale to the Canberra Montessori School.

The WCCC had written to the Minister on behalf of residents raising the issues discussed at WCCC meetings. These were the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed site, the lack of maintenance of the disused school oval and the need to consider alternative locations in existing buildings. The WCCC received in reply a copy of the letter Mr Corbell sent to Mr Hinge a resident of Mulley Street. Mr Hinge advised the meeting that he had written to the Minister directly as a concerned resident and included details of a survey he had undertaken on the use of the under-maintained tennis courts. Mr Hinge provided the WCCC with his letter to the Minister for the minutes (attachment C).

Mr Hinge thanked the WCCC for providing a venue for the community to put its view to the Canberra Montesori School and directly to the Minister when he attended meetings.

Mr Carl welcomed Mr Adam de Totth, President of the Weston Scout Group. Mr de Totth advised the meeting that the Weston Scout Group catered for youth in the age groups 6-8yrs, 8-11yrs, 11-15yrs and 15-18yrs which encompassed cubs to rovers.

Mr de Totth stated that the kids participate in adventure activities to have fun and learn. People are needed to coach, teach and mentor the kids. There is the opportunity to work with kids and have meaning to that interaction. There were 15 new kids who started as Joey's last term and leaders who work with kids learn themselves. Leaders are not put in the deep end but are provided with training and support. If you would like to contribute and help please contact the Scout group. Mr de Totth left his contact details with the WCCC for interested parents.

Mr Carl asked Mr de Totth if the WCCC could assist the Weston Scout Group in a more general manner. It was indicated that the main concern at present was graffiti on the scout hall adjacent to the Weston Skate Park and that continuous efforts of a few individuals were keeping the scout hall in good condition. A resident who identified himself, Peter Lindsay, indicated that the graffiti may not be a problem on some structures such as a skate park, Mr de Totth indicated that the Scouts were dealing with the issue in a low key approach seeking agreement and cooperation from the users of the skate park.

Mr Carl called on Mary Sexton, a resident of Duffy, who asked for the issue of community facilities to be put on the agenda to speak to the meeting. Ms Sexton rose to speak then immediately handed over to Mr Millar the President of the Weston Creek Community Association (WCCA).

Mr Millar told the meeting that the WCCA has oversight of the management of the building. He also indicated that the WCCA had on-going management of the community facility uncontested for 24 years. In addition the WCCA managed the separate building which has childcare. The WCCA has a committee that is elected at an AGM. The building and land are owned by the ACT Government and managed for the users by the WCCA. The building is provided rent-free on a recurring 5 year arrangement. The childcare building lease runs until 30 November 2005.

Mr Millar advised that the WCCA was told on 18 June 2002 that the lease would be terminated on 30 June 2002. He later clarified that statement in that the facility would be advertised in mid July, the process would take until mid October and the critical date was in December.

Mr Millar asked Mr Carl if he could read a statement into the minutes, after some debate it was agreed. This is attachment D. Limited copies supplied by the WCCA were circulated to some attendees.

Mr Carl asked if there were any questions. Mrs Heather Millar, Deputy President of the WCCA joined Mr Millar to answer questions.

• Jonathon Reynolds a resident of Gungahlin, expressed surprise that a community group had held a lease for 24 years and there had not been any open market contestability until this time. Mr Reynolds pointed out that in Gungahlin leases for community facilities were competitively tendered for a period of 3 or 5 years and as far as he was aware these leases were potentially contestable at the end of each period. Mr Reynolds cited an example where the Gungahlin Community Council had bid for new facilities but had lost out to a bid that was deemed superior from another organisation through the competitive tendering process. Mr Reynolds asked whether the WCCA intended to tender for the lease or were they simply expecting the Government to extend their lease without the WCCA having to show just cause why they continued to offer the best options for the facilities. Finally Mr Reynolds pointed out that competitive tendering was generally accepted as a part of current open and transparent government processes.
• Bob Wagg, a local resident, asked when do you advertise your meetings? how often do they occur? and how many members do you have? Mrs Millar advised that the WCCA advertise their services through adverts in the local press and on the noticeboards in the buildings they lease. They do not have sufficient funds to undertake letterbox drops. The rest of the question was unanswered.
• Juanita Kerec from Chapman told the meeting that the association should be ashamed of the way that he (Mr Millar) had approached the issue of the lease renewal. The statement read was not the best way to be taken seriously and he has done much damage to their own cause. Mr Millar’s style and attitude has not done him any favours. Mrs Kerec then stood up and left the meeting.
• Emma Morton, Director of the WCCA childcare said that she found the comments written by Mr Bob Sutherland in the newspaper to be offensive and directed at the WCCA.
• Mr Carl replied indicating that too much has obviously been read into the words by the WCCA and the article was in respect on the general availability and contestability of lease renewal in Weston Creek. Mr Sutherland only had written what was agreed to by the Executive of the WCCC.
• Mrs Pat McGinn told Mr Millar that the document distributed was an emotive document and not what would be expected from a sensible approach from a community group. She also advised, from her recent experience in the ACT Government that such a document would not be taken seriously and would adversely affect a tender. She suggested a calmer approach.

Mr Millar advised the meeting that the WCCA would use its limited funds to employ a person to put the tender document together. He also advised the WCCA hoped to talk through the issues with the head of the Department (of Education and Community Services).

• Bob Wagg asked if it was the policy of the WCCC to support open and competitive tender. Mr Carl stated that it is preferred to have community facility leases open to fair and transparent processes so that the limited facilities are best utilised. It is a government decision to go to tender in renewing leases and this appears to be their way of achieving fairness, openness and transparency in the allocating of limited facilities. Mr Wagg again asked if the WCCC supported open tender processes, Mr Carl stated that he preferred an open process for the limited facilities in Weston Creek.
• Peter Lindsay, a local resident, suggested that writing to local MLA’s may help.
• Mr Yung Tran, the manager of the building stated that he believed that it was not the universal policy and only comes about on some leases.

Mr Millar proceeded to elaborate on the unrepresentative nature of the WCCC membership citing that the WCCC required the person to -live in the area or be associated with an organisation active in Weston Creek, -have the form be signed by two members and – for the form to be approved by the Committee of the WCCC. Mr Millar said this was much more restrictive than the WCCA who considered all residents as members of the WCCA and membership was given to ‘paying users’.

• The WCCC Secretary responded by advising the meeting that an organisation cannot assume local residents to be members. The person needs to apply for membership and the membership had to be approved based on criteria, the WCCC criteria is not restrictive. The relevant passages from the WCCC constitution, which is based on the model constitution under the Association Regulations and which is used by the Tuggeranong Community Council and the Gungahlin Community Council were read. It was also suggested that the WCCA could not assume that all residents are members nor that membership can be limited to ‘paying users’. In addition ‘paying users’ who live outside Weston Creek and use the community facility or the childcare could be considered as members but not representative of Weston Creek residents. There is an incentive for ‘paying users’, especially from outside Weston Creek to become members of the WCCA. Mr Millar responded by indicating that the WCCA was under the Corporations regulations not association regulations that’s why they are treated differently. The Secretary admitted that those regulations may be different to those under which the WCCC operates.
• Mr Mervyn Willougby-Thomas indicated that it was time to pull back community ownership of facilities and social issues need to be put first.
• An unidentified gentleman posed the concern that the lease renewal was impacting on 2 local business and their employees. This was immediately challenged with a statement from the audience that the committee of management should be aware of the lease and plan for it as other businesses forward plan.

Mr Millar asked Mr Sutherland Deputy Chair of the WCCC if he was associated with any other organisations. Mr Sutherland responded with yes, he was a member of another organisation and then said that a majority of people in the room could be associated with multiple voluntary organisations. He indicated he was aware of one community organisation which had expressed an interest in community facilities in Weston Creek.

• Emma Morton, Director of the WCCA childcare said she was shocked and appalled that Mr Sutherland could be involved in another organisation in Weston Creek.
• Bob Wagg concluded by expressing that support for a community group rather than a commercial operator may be needed.

Mr Millar concluded by stating that staff moral from now to December would be a concern.

Mr Carl asked for any more questions. In the absence of any further questions Mr Carl advised that the meeting was closed and that the next WCCC meeting would have as Guest Speakers the Gungahlin Community Council on the topic of "The Tram - its benefits to all Canberrans".

Meeting closed 10.25pm

Next Meeting:

Wednesday 24^th July 2002

ATTACHMENT A - provided by Ms Rebecca Blundell to be included in the minutes

ATTACHMENT B - provided by Mr Keith Burnham to be included in the minutes

The Planning and Land Management Group (PALM) of Urban Services has undertaken a comprehensive review of the existing Residential Land Use Policies.

The draft Variation proposes to vary the Territory Plan by:

• · revising and adding some definitions at Part D, and where occurring in Appendix III, of the Territory Plan Written Statement;
• · replacing the Objectives and General Controls of the Residential Land Use Policies (Section 1, 2 and 3) at Part Bl of the Territory Plan Written Statement with revised policies;
• · replacing the paragraph titled "Master Plans" at Section 7 of Part A3 - Plan Administration Policies;
• · replacing paragraphs titled "Section Master Plans" in Section 4 - Area Specific Policies, Areas B11 and B12, with a revised paragraph;
• · replacing, deleting and adding specified provisions in the Residential Codes (Appendix III. of the Territory Plan).

Subject to consideration of responses received, PALM proposes to submit this draft Variation to the Executive in accordance with the provisions of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 (the Land Act).

This document consists of two parts:

• · An Explanatory Statement which describes the reasons for the draft Variation and the proposed changes to the Territory Plan, and
• · Attachment A, the draft Variation which identifies the precise changes to the Written Statement that are intended to be recommended to the Executive.

The existing Territory Plan is available for viewing at the PALM Shopfront (Challis St, Dickson), all ACT Government libraries and the internet (www.palm.act.gov.au/tplan).

People wishing to comment on the proposal must lodge their submission in writing by 29 July 2002. Submissions should be addressed to:

The Executive Director

Planning and Land Management Group

Urban Services

PO Box 1908

CANBERRA ACT 2601

Fax: 62071710

The draft Variation proposes to vary the Territory Plan by:

• · revising and adding some definitions at Part D, and where occurring in Appendix III, of the Territory Plan Written Statement;
• · replacing the Objectives and General Controls of the Residential Land Use Policies (Section 1, 2 and 3) at Part B1 of the Territory Plan Written Statement with revised policies;
• · replacing the section titled "Master Plans" at Section 7 of Part A3 - Plan Administration Policies;
• · replacing paragraphs titled "Section Master Plans" in Section 4 - Area Specific Policies, Areas B11 and B12, with a revised paragraph;
• · replacing, deleting and adding specified provisions in the Residential Codes (Appendix III of the Territory Plan).

2. REASONS FOR DRAFT VARIATION

The existing residential policies were introduced in 1993 and have been amended in part from time to time.

The Labor Party has issued a comprehensive document titled 'Planning for People' which sets out the Government's planning and land management policy agenda for Canberra. The attached draft Variation is the result of a comprehensive review of the Residential Land Use Policies that responds to this policy agenda. It also responds to submissions received on the Discussion Paper on the Residential Land Use Policies, Design and Siting Codes and Subdivision Code (sometimes referred to as the ACTCode II document), that was released for public comment in April 2001.

The Discussion Paper proposed replacing the Residential Policies and introducing a consolidated ACT Code for Residential Development for subdivision and building design and siting. The resulting document was both large and complex. Several submissions suggested establishing the policy framework first and then considering the detailed regulatory provisions.

This approach has now been adopted. This draft Variation revises the Residential Policies and a limited number of key provisions contained in the Residential Codes. The remaining detailed provisions of the proposed ACT Code for Residential Development are intended to be referred to a Community Advisory Panel before being incorporated into a future draft Variation to the Territory Plan.

Many submissions on the Discussion Paper were critical of the random nature of residential redevelopment and considered that the major issue of where change should occur had not been addressed. It was claimed that this had resulted in a lack of certainty regarding the location and nature of residential redevelopment. Many also considered that the policies proposed in the Discussion Paper did not address the stated challenge of "protecting the predominantly low-density, low-rise, leafy character of most established residential areas".

In December 2001 PALM released draft Variation 192 (DVP 192) to the Territory Plan, which introduced a new control to limit dual and triple occupancy housing. DVP 192 was released as an interim measure and will continue to have interim effect until 5 December 2002. Comments already lodged in relation to DVP 192 will be further considered in conjunction with any comments received on this draft Variation.

In response to the submissions received on the Discussion Paper and on draft Variation 192, this draft Variation proposes to introduce policies and provisions that:-

• protect the residential amenity and neighbourhood character of Suburban Areas;
• provide strategic guidance on the preferred location of residential redevelopment;
• promote more sustainable development;
• promote housing choice.

The draft Variation also provides a policy framework for Neighbourhood Planning.

Much of the policy content within the attached document is not substantively different to that already contained within the Territory Plan. However there are a number of key policy changes and these are summarised below.

A key provision of the revised Residential Policies is the introduction of a definition and explicit controls on 'residential redevelopment'. The controls are split into two groupings 'General' and 'Suburban Areas'.

The general controls will introduce a number of requirements aimed at reducing the impacts of residential redevelopment throughout the city. They make the High Quality Sustainable Design pre-application processes mandatory for all residential redevelopment and bring a number of the provisions from Planning Practice Note Number 6 (referred to as the "Lansdown Guidelines") into the statutory context of the Territory Plan.

The 'Suburban Area' provisions introduce a further layer of controls aimed at protecting the low rise, leafy character of the Suburban Areas. These areas are defined as being residential sections located wholly outside an area bounded by a line drawn 200 metres from the nearest edge of a Local Centre or 300m from the nearest edge of a Group or Town Centre (including Civic). The Suburban Areas also include residential areas that have been entered on the Heritage Places Register but exclude any area that is the subject of an Area Specific Policy with a B prefix, such as the B11 and B12 areas in inner North Canberra.

In Suburban Areas it is proposed to reduce the pressure for speculative residential redevelopment by restricting subdivision or consolidation of single dwelling housing blocks. Whilst provision is made for modest dual occupancy housing in these areas primarily to meet social needs, it will be required to meet a range of restrictions aimed at reducing its impact and will not be able to be separately titled.

It is envisaged that part of the neighbourhood planning process will be to review in detail the boundaries of the Suburban Areas for the particular neighbourhood and propose where necessary further changes to the Territory Plan to give effect to the recommendations of the Neighbourhood Plan.

This draft Variation also proposes to introduce some key changes to the existing residential design and siting codes in the Plan as a forerunner to a more comprehensive review following establishment of the Community Advisory Panel.

Other key changes include:

• Introduction of a common set of building envelope controls that will control the bulk and scale of buildings adjacent to boundaries and provide protection of the rear of blocks from overshadowing. These will be consistent across all areas including new development in greenfield areas and redevelopment, including in the B11 and B12 areas.

• Substantially increased standards for the minimum area of private open space, particularly on larger blocks, including restrictions on the amount of impermeable surfaces.

• A control on the size of the second storey of dwellings in Suburban Areas (this will not apply in the B11 and B12 areas where the existing plot ratio controls will continue to apply).

• · Replacing the current provisions of the B11 and B12 Area Specific Policies regarding Section Master Plans, which include a requirement that "multi unit development consisting of more than two dwellings shall be in accordance with a Section Master Plan" with a provision that Section Master Plans may be prepared from time to time and that they have no effect to the extent of any inconsistency with the Territory Plan;
• · Removing provisions in the Urban Housing Code that enable a Section Master Plan to specify less onerous standards than the Code itself;
• · Inserting procedures for the preparation and approval of Master Plans in Part A3 - Plan Administration Policies, that also reiterate that a Master Plan has no effect to the extent of any inconsistency with the Territory Plan.

ATTACHMENT C - letter provided by Mr Hinge to be included in the minutes