Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 1949 ..

say, the spatial plan and the Canberra plan document overall. I thank the committee for its report and its support of this variation.

MS TUCKER (12.21): I will make just one comment. In reading this report I note that on page 5 it says:

In a response to concerns expressed by the North Canberra Community Council about ‘insufficient area for internal roads, lack of visitor parking, garbage disposal problems, traffic and access issues, noise generation and loss of trees’ ACTPLA provided the response ‘the draft variation is not the mechanism for resolving detailed design issues. These are resolved during the High Quality Sustainable Design and development application stages when the development will be assessed within the context of the Territory Plan’s relevant code for multi unit development and relevant guidelines.’

I have been raising the question of internal roads and garbage disposal problems here for some time. I have asked Mr Corbell about this before. He said. “Don’t you worry about that. We take all these things into account; we listen to ACT city management; we listen to Roads ACT; we listen to what ACT NOWaste says and it is all really good.” Then, when I write a letter, I find that I have proof from constituents that the advice from those agencies was totally overridden by ACTPLA. I have, in fact, written questions to Mr Wood about this which I am still waiting for further detailed answers on. I think that is a serious concern. More recently we have already had the consequences of bad planning being dealt with at Amaroo. Huge community division has been created because of very poor planning processes in terms of traffic and access in that case. But we also know that there are other developments where people have bought into units and have been forced to use a private contractor for garbage collection because the design did not accommodate public waste collection. That is because the developers were not forced to take proper account of that issue. That is about Mr Wood’s area being ignored by Mr Corbell’s area.

MRS DUNNE (12.23): I take the point Ms Tucker raised that there is a lack of communication between the urban services part and the ACTPLA part—and the miscommunication. I would also like to reinforce the view expressed by ACTPLA, and agree wholeheartedly that the discussion of whether or not land use should be changed is not the place to have a discussion about garbage and traffic. It is quite rightly in the design DA process and we should address those issues.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Planning and Environment—Standing Committee

Report 30

MS DUNDAS (12.24): I present the following report:

Planning and Environment—Standing Committee—Report 30—Variation to the Territory Plan No. 223—Block 8 Section 55 Greenway (Lakeside Leisure Centre) and Block 13 Section 46 Greenway (enclosed sportsgrounds—Tuggeranong)—Public land overlay (Ph)—Sport and recreation reserve, dated 12 May 2004, together with a copy of the extracts of the relevant minutes of proceedings.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .