Page 75 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I have made my point about the length of time that this draft variation has taken to get to the committee. I would, however, like to pay tribute to the Lyons Primary School community and to the Lyons Community Association for their interest in pursuing this matter. My only regret is that it has taken such a long time to finalise their excellent proposals.
MR KAINE (9.32): The two earlier reports considered by the Assembly - that is, the report on the Tuggeranong Homestead and the report on North Watson - were notable because they raised very significant community issues. I said then that I believe that those issues will not soon go away. The variation before us now is a very small one relatively, but it raises some interesting questions in my mind. Those questions have to do with what the Territory Planning Authority sees its role to be. Despite the Government's urban infill program, their policy that says that 50 per cent of all residential units developed in the ACT over the next few years will be provided through urban infill, the Planning Authority never identified this piece of ground as one on which residential development could take place.
It has been said in the past that development in the Territory has been developer led; that the only developments that have taken place are those that have been proposed by developers; and that the Planning Authority has accommodated the developers in achieving whatever objectives they have set. This one clearly is not a developer led proposal. This is one that has come from the community itself. So I come back to the question: What does the Territory Planning Authority see its role to be? If it is not to initiate development proposals such as this but only to respond to proposals that come from somewhere else, then how can it hope to achieve the Government's objectives of urban infill? There are not going to be enough proposals of this kind to generate 50 per cent of all residential unit requirements over the next 10 years. The total number annually has been assessed at something of the order of 2,500 units, so that means that over 1,200 a year have to be generated by urban infill. They are not going to happen if the Planning Authority does nothing but sit back and wait for people to come forward and put proposals to them. This is a typical example. If the community itself had not seen the benefits and the advantages of this proposal, it would never have been put and this would not have been before us.
We have the Territory Plan; we have design and siting regulations; we have guidance of all kinds provided to the planners. The original proposal that was put to us in respect of design and siting, even if only in approximate terms, was not what appears at the back of this report. The significant thing is that the access to this new development was not where it is shown now to be, with a roundabout at the end of Devonport Street and access into Launceston Street through a roundabout. In fact, the access to this project was some 100 metres north, where there was recognised to be a parking problem because of buses and there was recognised to be a traffic problem because of the density of traffic up and down Launceston Street. It was the committee that said, "Why do you not put a roundabout in there and make access easy, get the access well removed from that area where the buses are causing a parking problem and minimise the traffic problem?".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .