Page 67 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Proponents of planning and developments in the ACT, government agencies and members of the community, at the end of the day, if they take a particular position and want to pursue it, will be held accountable and called upon to justify that position before our committee. That is something which I think enhances the planning process in the ACT. I have much pleasure in being able to commend this report to the Assembly.
MR KAINE (9.00): I think this inquiry by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee will be seen in the future as a milestone in the development of planning in the Territory. The report and the evidence presented to the committee go way beyond the particular proposal that was submitted to us, which had to do with the development in North Watson. If you look at the index page of this report you will note that, of 12 chapters in this document, only five relate specifically to North Watson. One might well ask why that is the case. The reason is that the Watson Community Association, particularly through three people - David Evans, Julie Smith and Mark Dunstone - made significant submissions to this committee that went way beyond the specific proposal that was being considered and raised real questions about the processes and the way in which land development occurs in this Territory.
I refer again to the table of contents. Chapter 5 of this report talks about the draft variation process - not specifically relating to North Watson, but the draft variation process in all of its connotations. Chapter 6 talks about the consultation process. Chapter 7 talks about the policy of urban infill, of which North Watson is only one manifestation. Chapter 8 talks about the North Canberra area strategy, of which North Watson is only one element. Chapter 10 talks about the use of the defined land provisions in land development. Chapter 11 talks about the impact of this proposal on the ACT's tourist potential. These issues go way beyond North Watson as a specific development proposal. So I repeat that I believe that this investigation by the committee represents somewhat of a milestone in the Government's handling of development in the Territory. I think that the community at large owes a great debt of thanks to the three people that I mentioned for their persistence in raising issues that needed to be dealt with in an appropriate forum bearing on the question of land development in this Territory. I hope that the Government reads this report. I hope that they take very seriously the matters that the committee has reflected, raised by the community, in connection with all of these matters. If they do not, they are losing the opportunity of a learning process that has been presented to them. I think it is quite incredible that three people have made such an impact on this whole process.
At the end of the day the five members of the committee had to decide not just whether this development should go ahead, but also whether it was in the community interest that it go ahead in the form in which it was originally presented to the public for consideration. Mr Lamont has pointed out that the project, in its present form, is vastly different from that which was presented to the public in the original documents that went out for community consultation. The original proposal dealt with the possibility of 2,000 residential units up there, some of which would have been to the eastern side of Antill Street on the foothills of Mount Majura. The result, after a long period of negotiation and discussion and interchange between the community and the Government and the committee, is a proposal for only 1,300 units. Some people will say that there should not be 1,300 residential units on that site. I have to say that I do not know
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .