Auditor-General Lessons

Background: the Phillip pool Territory Plan report

In June 2026, the ACT Auditor-General released Report No. 7/2026,Changes to the Territory Plan requirements for the Phillip pool.

The report examined how ACT Government agencies planned for, and changed, Territory Plan requirements for the Phillip Swimming and Ice-Skating Centre site in Phillip. The audit focused on transparency in the administrative process.

The report is relevant to DPA-14 because it shows why Territory Plan changes need a clear evidence trail. A Territory Plan amendment can shape what is allowed on land for years. That means the supporting analysis should be specific, documented and accurately presented to the public.

Key lesson 1: the evidence should come before the planning change

The Auditor-General found that, in the Phillip pool matter, government officials had reached a view about what the future Territory Plan requirements for the site should be. However, that position was not supported by the kind of specific needs analysis or detailed planning study that had previously been identified as necessary.

Relevance to DPA-14: residents are entitled to ask what analysis came before the proposed Territory Plan change. The ACT Government should identify the specific studies that support the proposed use of Block 1653 Belconnen, explain when they were prepared, and show how they apply to the current block, not only to the broader former Block 1582 context.

Key lesson 2: broad background work is not the same as site-specific evidence

The Phillip pool report shows the difference between general background work and analysis that actually answers the decision question.

For DPA-14, the decision question is not simply whether Canberra needs green waste services. The question is whether Block 1653 Belconnen should have "recycling facility" and "bulk landscape supplies" added as assessable uses under the Territory Plan.

Relevance to DPA-14: the ACT Government should explain whether the technical studies relied on for DPA-14 directly assess Block 1653, the proposed uses, the access arrangements, the drainage and environmental setting, the odour and public-health risks, bushfire risk, traffic impacts, and any potential staged intensification or co-location of waste-related uses.

Key lesson 3: public documents must not overstate the evidence

A major finding from the Phillip pool report was that public consultation material referred to a sport and recreation needs analysis as if it had determined that a 25-metre pool and associated facilities would meet community needs. The Auditor-General found that this analysis was not undertaken as described and that the public explanation misrepresented the nature and extent of the analysis used to support the Territory Plan change.

Relevance to DPA-14: the public documents should clearly distinguish between:

• what the technical studies actually assessed;
• what they did not assess;
• assumptions and limitations in those studies;
• whether the studies apply directly to Block 1653 Belconnen or more generally to the former Block 1582 area;
• whether future co-location or staged intensification has been considered.

If the public documents simplify or overstate the evidence base, residents cannot make fully informed submissions.

Key lesson 4: consultation is only meaningful if the evidence is visible

Public consultation is not just a deadline and a submission form. It only works properly if people can see the material that supports the proposed change.

For DPA-14, residents should not have to guess why Block 1653 was selected, how earlier studies apply, or what risks have been assessed. The technical reports, assumptions, limitations and decision logic should be easy to find and easy to understand.

Key lesson 5: government should show how past audit lessons have been applied

The Auditor-General made recommendations aimed at improving how future planning and development responses are documented and presented. This matters for DPA-14 because the ACT Government should be able to show how recent audit findings have influenced current Territory Plan amendment practice.

Relevance to DPA-14: residents can reasonably ask whether the ACT Government has applied the Phillip pool lessons to DPA-14. In practical terms, that means showing that the evidence is documented, current, site-specific, accurately presented and available to the public before the Territory Plan is changed.

Questions for DPA-14 arising from the Auditor-General report

Residents may wish to ask:

1. What specific evidence supports the proposed Territory Plan change for Block 1653 Belconnen?
2. Which studies directly assess Block 1653 as a separate parcel, and which studies were prepared for the broader former Block 1582 area?
3. Have any studies been updated since Block 1653 was created or separately identified?
4. Do the public DPA-14 documents clearly identify the assumptions, limitations and age of each technical report?
5. Has the ACT Government assessed the cumulative impact of green waste processing, bulk landscape supplies and any potential future co-location or staged intensification of waste-related uses?
6. Is there a clear evidence matrix showing which report supports each major claim made in the DPA-14 consultation material?
7. Which agency is responsible for checking that public responses to community feedback accurately describe the analysis actually undertaken?
8. How has the ACT Government applied the Auditor-General's recommendations about documenting community needs and accurately presenting the nature and extent of analysis?
9. If the evidence base is incomplete or not site-specific, why is the Territory Plan amendment proceeding now?
10. Will the ACT Government publish a clear response explaining how submissions have been considered before any decision is made?

Suggested submission wording

The ACT Auditor-General's Report No. 7/2026,Changes to the Territory Plan requirements for the Phillip pool, highlights the importance of documented analysis and accurate public explanations when Territory Plan requirements are changed.

For DPA-14, I ask the Territory Planning Authority to demonstrate that the proposed amendment for Block 1653 Belconnen is supported by current, site-specific evidence. The Authority should clearly identify which studies apply directly to Block 1653, which studies relate to the broader former Block 1582 area, what limitations or assumptions apply, and how the Government has ensured that public consultation material accurately reflects the evidence actually undertaken.