Page 81 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee supported the variation but recommended that the non-retail commercial use be broadened to permit retail use. The committee also recommended that the ACT Planning Authority carry out a study of the Kingston shopping centre to determine its longer-term needs. The ACT Planning Authority has suggested, and the Government supports the view - I ask committee members to consider this; I have raised it with them - that retail use not be permitted in the new development at this stage, for two reasons. First, there has been no public discussion on that proposal; and, secondly, it would pre-empt the review to be undertaken by the Planning Authority. I suggest that we do that review first, and then that might be the appropriate time to consider retail use.
The final variation concerns Lyons Primary School. This variation was suggested by the Lyons Primary School Board and originally provided for 22 houses on that part of the schoolgrounds not required by the school. I am not sure that every media outlet got that quite right. The committee has now recommended that the site be slightly increased in size to accommodate 24 dwellings and that a roundabout be incorporated into the access arrangements. Both the school board and the Planning Authority support the committee's recommendations. I cannot quite make out Mr Kaine's views on this. It seemed to me when he was raising this issue that he was asking: Why do we bring these variations forward when it is for the committee to have the expertise to change it, and where is the expertise in the Planning Authority? Mr Kaine seemed to be saying, "What is the purpose of the committee?".
Mr Kaine: No; I asked: What is the purpose of the Planning Authority? You have got it dead wrong.
MR WOOD: We rely on the committee. I am happy to incorporate your knowledge into the process; we do want that process. Mr Kaine, I think, was wondering what was the point of it all.
Madam Speaker, all these variations have been in preparation for a very long time. Two in particular, the Tuggeranong Homestead and North Watson variations, have been the subject of much community discussion. All these variations form part of the Government's urban renewal program, which is a dynamic program, as evidenced by the Government's decision last week to defer the variation for North Duffy-Holder. What we see here tonight is that the process that has been established is working, and working well. If it continues to be refined, that is a good thing. In all these circumstances, the process has delivered the appropriate result, the best result for Canberra. I commend the process - I am not saying that it is absolutely perfect - and I commend those who have been involved. In the case of North Duffy-Holder, all the studies confirmed, certainly at the Planning Authority stage of discussion, that the site was a prime urban renewal site; but the Government considered that the important research at Mount Stromlo should be completed before any such development occurred. Thus, we have deferred that for 10 years. It is a matter for another parliament, another government, and certainly another Minister to pick up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .