The Territory Plan is part of the unfortunate reason why good, fast cycling infrastructure between town centres for commuting cyclists – cycle highways – has not been, and will most likely not be built. The ACT planning has been critiqued for hampering innovation. The comment, while likely directed at urban architecture, is still true for urban planning and design. Cycle highways are not possible without inclusion in statutory documents, such as the Territory Plan. Every change process starts with the first step in the right direction. We just need to take it!
6.1 We think like mayflies
The Romans built a bridge, marched across the Rhine River, beat up the barbarians and then marched back again, destroying the bridge on the way. All part of a good weekend’s work. It served to remind the barbarians that they were not safe!
This story is unusual, as bridges last a lifetime – typically around 80 years. Some railway bridges in the UK are celebrated, as they are hundreds of years old. A boring, old bridge may outlast us all.
Keep this in mind when you consider Minister Steel’s dilemma. As a politician, your life expectancy is just to the end of the next electoral cycle. Four years is not a long time in the bigger scheme of things. Minister Steel is often questioned about the John Gorton Drive Bridge. By the time the bridge is finished, he may have moved on from politics, and before it is replaced, we all will likely be with the angels. John Gorton Drive Bridge is almost certain to outlive all of us. Minister Steel must get a little bored at times talking about this bridge.
As we tend to think of ourselves as the centre of the universe, it is hard to appreciate that we are surrounded by things that will outlive us all. We are surrounded by man-made artefacts that existed in this world before we arrived, and they will exist after we are gone. Our lives are ephemeral.
Cities are neither ephemeral nor static. One of the challenges of urban planning in our political environment is the limited horizon of our thinking. We think that because we have lived in an area for five years it belongs to us. We struggle to look five years into the future, let alone conceive the expanse of time that the suburb will exist. We are not owners of a suburb but temporary visitors. It will be inhabited by others later after we have gone.
When we design and build a suburb we should be thinking far out, as what is set in concrete now will still be there in 60 years. In stratified systems theory we call that “task completion time”. It can take many decades before the ACT Government gets around to considering the renewal of the infrastructure, or in the world of cycling, before safe network paths are finally built or completed. The ACT Government is in a race to expand the city fast enough to provide for the growing population. It has little time to waste thinking about what already exists.
We need good cycling infrastructure in Canberra, but it will take decades to build it. The Netherlands has been working on the cycling project since the 1970s (50 years = half a century = 5 decades) and achieved much, but they still have not redesigned all the car-centric roads that were so typical of the 1950s. Cities were a man-made machine moving motorists. Now we would like to make space for bicycles and other travel modes, too. Cities that cater for both “movement” and that create a “place” to live.
The challenge of urban planning is stretching our mind and designing for perpetuity, when we live like mayflies!
6.2 Lessons of history
The Territory Plan is a scrap book of Canberra’s planning. By looking into the Territory Plan, we can see the DNA of Canberra’s evolution and the history of urban planning in Canberra.
The Territory Plan may appear daunting but contains a history of the thinking that made Canberra what it is today. It is easier to add to the Territory Plan than to rewrite it, so that it has evolved layer upon layer. It includes a collection of Structure Plans and Concept Plans for future urban areas that have now been built. Reviewing what was planned versus what was built, provides us with valuable insights into the urban development process in Canberra.
“Historians are experts in temporal imagining. They spend their days reading the words and examining the objects of the men and women who walked the world before us.”[1]
As historians, the Territory Plan provides insight into the thinking that has made Canberra the city it is today. There are a few surprises, as the visions of the planners have often not been realised.
This section reviews the structure plans and concept plans found in the Territory Plan. Structure plans proceed the concept plans and are the vision as opposed to the application of that vision. Structure plans may contain sketches. Concept plans contained more detailed estate maps. Concept plans show how the vision will be turned into reality.
Finally, we can examine what is on the ground today. We gain useful insights considering suburbs, such as Harrison, where the population increased 5 to 10 years ago, and the building brigade has long moved on. These assets have been returned to the ACT Government long ago. The developer has moved on. Should it not have been built already, then nobody is left to build it. The project is completed or abandoned.
Looking back 12 years, from the planned to what is there today, provides insight into how the planning system works, and what has been forgotten.
Human nature is flawed
We struggle with urban planning because it means we need to think long into the future. It is human nature to not do this well, as we are far too narrowly focused on the here and now. This review of the Territory Plan looks back to see how much we have forgotten.
Our preoccupation with a very narrow period of time, around today or this week, means that we forget planners’ intentions and importantly do not notice how much has been forgotten and/or never realised. There is no formal system in the ACT to review projects and determine gaps and inconsistencies in the development of future urban areas. The ACT Government does not have a report of what was not done – at least, we could not find one.
Here we review in the way of a historian. We will try to make sense of what has gone on, and, of course, with a cycling focus.
We all have ridden on a cycle path that stops suddenly. At that moment we doubt the sanity of the planners. The answer may be the simplest, if not the most obvious – the path was planned, just never built! We judge ourselves by our intent, and others by the outcome. Needless to say, the unfinished paths are disappointing.
“Thinking about time is difficult, wrenching oneself out of the dramas and routines of the present to fully imagine worlds that were and will be different, confronting our transience and our mortality.”[2]
6.3 Cycle paths: planned but not built
The planning mechanism has a systemic weakness. The Territory Plan shows that cycle paths are planned – but not built. The Territory Plan is a statutory document.
The Territory Plan contains both structure plans and concept plans. In principle, the contents are mandatory. However, it is common that cycle paths in these documents are never built. This is one reason why paths stop abruptly in the landscape. The path network was planned, yet never completed.
“What is a structure plan?
A structure plan sets out principles and policies for development of the future urban areas.[3]
What is a concept plan?
A concept plan—
(a) applies the principles and policies in the structure plan to future urban areas; and
(b) is a precinct code in the territory plan (see section 55 (3)) that guides the preparation and assessment of development in future urban areas to which the concept plan relates.”[4]
The blue lines on the maps below (figures 6-1 to 6-5) are shared paths that were planned but never built. The paths have been mapped from the information found in concept plans from the Territory Plan.
This section shows an overview map and below that map enlargements for the following areas:
- West Macgregor (figure 6-2)
- South Lawson (figure 6-3)
- Gungahlin town centre and Harrison (figure 6-5)
- Casey (figure 6-6)
West Macgregor
These bike paths have not been built in the last 9 years. The missing paths are mapped from figure 9 path network plan, Macgregor West Concept Plan, 13 April 2012, Territory Plan, 20.
South Lawson
These bike paths have not been built in the last 10 years. The missing paths are mapped from figure 5 Movement network, Lawson South Concept Plan, 7 October 2011, Territory Plan. For this area, there is also a structure plan.
Gungahlin Town Centre and Harrison
These bike paths have not been built in the last 11 years. The missing paths are mapped from Flemington Road Corridor Concept Plan, 29 October 2010, and Gungahlin Town Centre Structure Plan, Territory Plan. See also Gungahlin Central Area Structure Plan, Gungahlin Town Centre Structure Plan.
Casey
These bike paths have not been built in the last 13 years. The missing paths are mapped from Casey Concept Plan, 19 December 2008, off-road cycle network, Territory Plan, 22. See also North Gungahlin Structure Plan.
6.4 Language of structure plans
Structure plans are high level documents. The closest to a planning strategy that can be found in the Territory Plan. Do the principles found in structure plans lead to suburbs fit for cycling?
The ACT urban planning review would like to see stronger links between the ACT Planning Strategy and the Territory Plan. The structure plans are high level statements on the outcomes for future urban areas.
Assuming that the statements in the structure plans are carried forward to later planning stages, one would expect that a strong outcome for cycling where the structure plan has strong goals for the cycling network. Looking at the language of structure plans is the first step to assessing if this is the case.
Some structure plans may have sketches and maps, often drawn by hand. A sketch can make a powerful statement. Visualisations should not be neglected.
“What is a structure plan?
A structure plan sets out principles and policies for development of the future urban areas.”[5]
Structure plans in the Territory Plan
- South Lawson Structure Plan
- Crace Structure Plan
- East Gungahlin Structure Plan
- North Gungahlin Structure Plan
- Gungahlin Central Area Structure Plan
- North Watson Structure Plan
- Kingston Foreshore Structure Plan
- West Belconnen Structure Plan
Main goal
Table 6-1 outlines for each structure plan the vision for cycling. Should there be more than one statement, the strongest is listed.
Active travel was introduced into the transport strategy first in 2012 and then later in 2015, 2018, and 2020. The transport strategy informs the planning strategy. One might expect outcomes to improve over time. The structure’s plan year of release is also included in the table 6-1.
| Structure Plan | Year | Goal |
| North Watson | 2008 | none |
| South Lawson | 2010 | provide access to key features |
| Crace | 2008 | integrated cycling network |
| East Gungahlin | 2014 | integrated cycling route network |
| North Gungahlin | 2008 | integrated cycling route network |
| Gungahlin Central Area | 2011 | provided early in the developmentseparate commuter cycling routesencourage the use of bicycles |
| Kingston Foreshore | 2010 | encourage the use of bicycles |
| West Belconnen | 2016 | integrated cycling route networkencourage cycling to reduce travel dependence |
Standard phrases
The most common standard phrases from the table 6-1 are fleshed out below.
Little to nothing
Both North Watson and South Lawson have little to nothing to say about cycling. This is not good. The structure plans are from 2008 and 2010.
Integrated cycling route network
The only variation found in this phrase is that before 2016 the text refers to only national standards and not ACT standards. It is found in structure plans from 2008, 2014, and 2016.
This phrase states the requirement for a cycling network, but not the function nor the quality of the network. The reference to ACT or national standards could be seen as helpful, however, the structure plan is one of vision. The standards are more relevant to the concept plan. Because of the lack of a vision this phrase is better than nothing, but still weak. The Belconnen Town Centre upgrade demonstrated a vision in a way that it can be designed.
“An integrated cycling route network should be created within and between communities consistent with ACT and national standards.[6]
Encourage the use of bicycles
This phrase looks promising as it describes what makes good cycling infrastructure: functional, convenient, safe and attractive. It is found in structure plans from 2010 and 2011. This phrase is better than the last, as it describes the qualities of a cycling network that encourages cycling. The technical ACT and national standards are not about making a cycling path attractive. Urban planning practitioners understand what it means to create a sense of ‘place’.
“Encourage the use of bicycles for transport by providing functional, convenient, safe and attractive cycle routes.[7]
Encourage cycling
The description below demonstrates a good understanding of the desired active travel outcomes and recent goals in the 2018 ACT Planning Strategy. West Belconnen has the strongest vision. The ACT Government had made a strong statement on active travel in 2015. The ACT Government goal is to “reduce vehicle dependence” and create active travel suburbs that are “legible and permeable”.
“Neighbourhoods will be planned to encourage walking and cycling to reduce vehicle dependence, with a legible and permeable hierarchy of roads, conveniently located commercial and community facilities.”[8]
Outcomes today
Table 6-2 describes the quality of the outcome for cyclists.
| Structure Plan | Year | Plan | Outcome |
| North Watson | 2008 | poor | none |
| South Lawson | 2010 | poor | poor |
| Crace | 2008 | OK | excellent |
| East Gungahlin | 2014 | OK | poor |
| North Gungahlin | 2008 | OK | good |
| Gungahlin Central Area | 2011 | good | poor |
| Kingston Foreshore | 2010 | good | poor |
| West Belconnen | 2016 | excellent | excellent |
Impressions
The first thing to be noted is that the outcome has little to do with the structure plan’s date. One might expect the outcomes to improve for more recent projects, but this hypothesis does not stand.
The second option is a correlation to the region. This is also not the case. Take Gungahlin as an example. North Gungahlin and Crace are good, but Central and East Gungahlin are poor. This failure of planning networked cycling infrastructure in Central Gungahlin will bear consequences.
Finally, the vision of an “integrated cycling network” has not produced consistent outcomes. Crace has come out the best, ahead of North Gungahlin. East Gungahlin is struggling.
East Gungahlin failure is the result of a poor cycling network in Central Gungahlin and an unfinished Well Station Drive. Throsby has been left isolated. A 3.5 m dedicated cycle path along Well Station Drive would connect Throsby with the end of the cycle route on Flemington Road (CBR Cycle Route C11). Harrison is not easily fixed and difficult to traverse.
In conclusion, there is no strong correlation to the date, region, or cycling vision. What makes a suburb good for cyclists depends on other factors. The planning process produces mixed outcomes and sprinkles good cycling suburbs between bad. A fragmented cycle network undermines change management efforts to increase regular cycling participation. We are mixing good assets amongst bad ones. The failure to build a consistent and interconnected network will undermine cycling mode share growth for years to come.
Structure plan overview
North Watson (2008)
Cycling is not mentioned.
South Lawson (2010)
South Lawson Structure Plan has little to say about cycling, but makes up for it with the sketch.
“Shared cycle/pedestrian paths will provide access to key features in Lawson south and connect to existing paths in surrounding areas including the University of Canberra and lake foreshore.”[9]
Crace (2008)
“An integrated cycling and pedestrian network should connect to the local centre, parks and hilltops within the suburb of Crace and provide links to trunk routes, services and facilities in other areas of Gungahlin and Canberra.”[10]
North Gungahlin (2008)
“An integrated cycling route network should be created within and between communities consistent with national standards.”[13]
“An integrated cycling and pedestrian network should connect commercial centres, schools, parks, ovals, and hilltops and provide links to trunk routes.”[14]
Gungahlin Central Area (2011)
For the Gungahlin Central Area Structure Plan, the intent is strong, but the outcomes are poor.
“Vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing adjacent suburbs are provided early in the development.”[15]
Cycling infrastructure from day one is the best way to stop car dependence.
“Separate commuter cycling routes from the walking paths.[16]
Commuters from the northern suburbs of east Gungahlin (Bonner, Forde and Throsby) will ride through Harrison to travel south. The CBR Cycle Route C11 is along Flemington Road, south of Well Station Drive. North of Well Station Drive, the cycling infrastructure is poor.
“Encourage the use of bicycles for transport by providing functional, convenient, safe and attractive cycle routes connecting major destinations and linking to district and metropolitan cycle ways, as well as providing bicycle racks and locking facilities in public areas.
Facilitate the use of bicycles for recreation by providing attractive and safe cycle ways integrated with the open space system.”[17]
This paragraph looks promising as it describes what makes good cycling infrastructure: functional, convenient, safe and attractive.
“Facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement within the Town Centre and Central Suburbs and from adjacent areas.” [18]
“Provide convenient bicycle and pedestrian access between transport nodes (public transport facilities and car parking) and retail, community and recreational facilities, and to adjoining suburbs.”[19]
Kingston Foreshore (2010)
“Encourage the use of bicycles for transport by providing functional, convenient, safe and attractive cycle routes.”[20]
This paragraph looks promising as it describes what makes good cycling infrastructure: functional, convenient, safe and attractive.
West Belconnen (2016)
“An integrated cycling route network should be created within and between communities consistent with ACT and national standards.”[21]
“Neighbourhoods will be planned to encourage walking and cycling to reduce vehicle dependence, with a legible and permeable hierarchy of roads, conveniently located commercial and community facilities.”[22]
“The (commercial) centre will be well serviced by public transport and link effectively with the wider pedestrian and cycling network.”[23]
“Provision will be made for open space links between the Murrumbidgee River Corridor, Ginninderra Creek and Strathnairn Village suitable for cycling, pedestrian and equestrian use.
Provision will be made for open space links to the Molonglo River Corridor and to the existing off road path network in Belconnen for the purposes of pedestrian, equestrian and cycle use.”[24]
“Shared paths (bicycle/pedestrian) will provide access to key features within West Belconnen.” [25]
6.5 Statement of Strategic Directions
The Territory Plan includes a short Statement of Strategic Directions. The 2018 ACT Planning Strategy is none-statutory, so it does not mean a great deal. The Territory Plan is statutory and carries more weight.
Importance
The Statement of Strategic Directions (3 May 2018, Territory Plan, accessed 19 June 2021) has strength, because a development application, which contradicts a strategic directive, could be blocked. The 2018 ACT Planning Strategy, as a none-statutory document, does not carry any weight in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT), where contentious proposals are reviewed. ACAT is a legal authority regulated under the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008.
Master plans and strategy documents are routinely ignored in development applications. Some claim developers can do what they like. While this is not true, the planning authorities would have trouble rejecting an application without concrete reasons. The strategy documents are nice, but far too vague to have any practical value in planning decisions.
Developers have adapted, pushing proposals through loopholes in the planning system. The planning system is played like the tax system – if you can find a loophole, it is ok. The planning authorities are often aware that developments do not correspond with the intent of the planning instruments, and outcomes may be poor for the community. An undesirable outcome cannot be used to justify rejecting a development. The development must contradict a strategy direction of the Territory Plan, or break a rule found in one of the codes. With a little effort, it may be possible to meander the development between the obstacles, tick all the boxes, and get approval. The decision is of a technical or legal nature, and not one of the grand vision or strategic intent. It certainly cannot guarantee quality.
A good example of the problem is the Gungahlin Town Centre. The north-west corner is block coded as commercial. What you see today, however, are high rise apartments – clearly mixed residential and little commercial. Possibly the empty businesses units on the ground level got the project over the hurdle. The ground plan is without any amenities, and remains deserted and barren. The ACT Government now would like to rezone the area to correspond with what it has become – residential. The planning instrument in this case has failed to produce the desired outcome.
The Territory Plan consists of many rules, and rules enable outputs but do not necessarily enforce a good outcome. The outcomes themselves must be stated and enforced – in a statutory way. The first steps have been taken with the National Capital Design Review Panel (NCDRP).
Statement of Strategic Directions
Few of the strategic directions are related to active travel or cycling.
Strategic direction 1.10 states that active travel is to be prioritised, but it does not mention the ACT Transport Strategy priorities, which are in order: pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and finally the personal motor vehicle. The Territory Plan should be specific about the priorities as it affects transport budget decisions. Cycling has been underfunded for decades.
“1.10 Integrated land use and transport planning will seek to maximise accessibility and transport efficiency, prioritise active travel, reduce energy consumption, increase physical activity, support the preferred pattern of development, promote safety, safeguard environmental quality, and minimise greenhouse gas emissions.”[26]
Strategic direction 1.24 mandates segregated pedestrian and cycle networks, without saying whether it is segregated from the road or each other (cycling only and pedestrian only paths). Presumably, what is meant here is that the pedestrian and bike paths are grade separated from the road (commonly called off-road cycle paths or community paths). A legible and permeable hierarchy of roads is intended to make it easier for the pedestrian and cyclist to get around.
“1.24 All new developments and re-developments will be planned with appropriate and segregated network facilities for pedestrians and cyclists; provision for accessible public transport; a legible and permeable hierarchy of roads; conveniently located commercial and community facilities; and a network of open spaces.”[27]
Strategic directive 2.7 mandates that routes be reserved for inter-town public transport, but does not go so far as to mandate reservation of cycle corridors. These are the same thing for bicycles, and a requirement to build cycle highways. This requirement should be added to the Territory Plan. Commuter cycling is to be encouraged, but it does not provide a strategy how this is best done: a network of off-road cycle highways between town centres.
“2.7 Development will be planned to encourage use of public transport, walking and cycling, including commuter cycling. Routes will be reserved for an enhanced inter-town public transport system. Requirements for vehicle parking will be related to commercial needs and transport policy objectives.”[28]
Only three strategic directives relate to cycling from 43, which is better than none but still not many.
6.6 Territory Plan: outdated and incomplete
Considering the Territory Plan is a statutory document and the rule book for development in the ACT, any reasonable person would expect the information contained in it to be correct. Unfortunately, our trust in the Territory Plan is misplaced. The Territory Plan is often outdated and misleading.
A moving target
We can test the accuracy of the Territory Plan by comparing its contents with other documents. In this case, we examine the Structure Plan Molonglo and North Weston,[29] which is like a chapter in the Territory Plan (effective 2017), and conclude that the John Gorton Drive alignment from the Territory Plan is at least seven years out of date. This seems to be long enough to have the error corrected.
Molonglo Valley road network
The site for the bridge crossing of the John Gorton Drive over the Molonglo River was moved downstream sometime between 2008-2014. The original crossing point was planned at the eastern corner of the suburb of Molonglo. The bridge site was later moved to the northern corner of the suburb, adjacent to Coppins Crossing.
This new location of the bridge site can be seen on the staging plan from the Molonglo Commercial Centre and Environs Draft Concept Plan, June 2014 (figure 6-9). This document is not part of the Territory Plan.
The Structure Plan Molonglo and North Weston[30] is part of the Territory Plan and shown in
figure 6-10. Surprisingly, even though the document was last updated in 2017, the bridge crossing is still shown in the old – and now wrong – location. The location of the bridge is shown below, as indicated by “on-road cycle paths” (red lines), crossing in east Molonglo and then swinging north. The new route alignment for John Gorton Drive is north until Coppins Crossing and then swings east to Coulter Drive.
Backlog of changes
One would think that seven years would be enough time to correct the Territory Plan, but apparently not. To make matters worse, the maps at the Molonglo District Planning Review (June 2021) presented to the residents of the Molonglo Valley were also in error. Clearly, the data sources internally in ACT Planning have yet to be updated.
Although errors in ACT Planning’s internal spatial datasets may be excusable, the Territory Plan is a more stringent case. The Territory Plan has a central function as a statutory document and the existence of long-standing errors is therefore of concern. Such an error is unlikely to be an isolated case and it seems to be reasonable to assume there are others. We cannot expect the uninformed person to know what is correct and what is not. We rely on the document’s accuracy. The Territory Plan should provide absolute clarity in the planning wilderness, but it does not.
Developments will be submitted for the approval only to find that the Territory Plan is in error in some regard. We have heard complaints, that developments are “difficult” in the ACT. Providing the correct information up front would better serve developers. Some corrections to the Territory Plan are long overdue.
[1] J. Brett, ‘In neglecting the National Archives, the Morrison government turns its back on the future’.in The Conversation, 2021, <http://theconversation.com/in-neglecting-the-national-archives-the-morrison-government-turns-its-back-on-the-future-162599> [accessed 8 July 2021].
[2] Ibid.
[3] Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) R103, 71.
[4] Ibid. 71.
[5] Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) R103, 71.
[6] ACT Environment and Planning Directorate, Structure Plan – West Belconnen, ACT Government, 2016, <https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/DownloadFile/ni/2008-27/copy/109695/PDF/2008-27.PDF> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[7] ACT Planning and Land Authority, Structure Plan – Kingston Foreshore, ACT Government, 2010, <https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/DownloadFile/ni/2008-27/copy/68159/PDF/2008-27.PDF> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[8] ACT Government, Building an Integrated Transport Network – Active Travel.Canberra, ACT Government, 2015, <https://www.transport.act.gov.au/about-us/active-travel?a=888712> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[9] ACT Planning and Land Authority, Lawson South Structure Plan, ACT Government, 2010, <file:///C:/Users/joshu/Downloads/2008-27%20(5).PDF> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[10] ACT Planning and Land Authority, Structure Plan – Suburb of Crace and Gungahlin, ACT Government, 2008, <https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/DownloadFile/ni/2008-27/copy/61196/PDF/2008-27.PDF> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[11] ACT Planning and Land Authority , Structure Plan – East Gungahlin, ACT Government, 2008, <https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/DownloadFile/ni/2008-27/copy/100266/PDF/2008-27.PDF> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[12] Ibid.
[13] ACT Planning and Land Authority , Structure Plan – North Gungahlin, ACT Government, 2008, <https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/DownloadFile/ni/2008-27/copy/61192/PDF/2008-27.PDF> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[14] Ibid.
[15] ACT Environment and Planning Directorate, Structure Plan – Gungahlin Central Area, ACT Government, 2011, <https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/DownloadFile/ni/2008-27/copy/82868/PDF/2008-27.PDF> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] ACT Planning and Land Authority, Structure Plan – Kingston Foreshore, 2010.
[21] ACT Environment and Planning Directorate, Structure Plan – West Belconnen, 2016.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] ACT Government, 2.1 Statement of Strategic Directions, ACT Government, 2018, <https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/DownloadFile/ni/2008-27/copy/118748/PDF/2008-27.PDF> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[27] Ibid.
[28] ACT Government, 2.1 Statement of Strategic Directions, ACT Government, 2018.
[29] ACT Government, Structure Plan Molonglo and North Weston, 25 May 2017, Territory Plan (accessed 22 June 2021)
[30] Ibid.
canberra.bike 