Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3944 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
after my lobbying that the authority agreed to provide a statement of environmental management principles to entrants.
Second, there was the sacking of planning activist Ms Jacqui Rees from the board of the authority in 1997 because the Government did not like criticism of its own bad planning policies. This is obviously a case of shooting the messenger, rather than seriously addressing concerns that were echoed by many people in the community about development planned in the city. The winning entry in the design competition was interesting and showed potential; however, the preliminary assessment of the proposal put out by the authority earlier this year was a big let-down in terms of how the development would be promoting ESD.
It was very worrying that ESD principles and initiatives were dealt with in two pages at the end of a 142-page document. Ecologically sustainable development should be an integral part of decision-making and not something that is just tacked on at the end. The preliminary assessment put up by the authority indicated that the development could end up being little better than a typical urban subdivision. It could end up extending the existing medium-density development around Kingston out to the lake foreshore.
The authority was offering a fairly conventional urban development with all the usual features: Lots of roads, parking, and the usual water, sewerage and electrical infrastructure. There was little that stood out as particularly innovative. The clear message from earlier community consultation on the use of this site was that the development should be a place for all people and that there should be no obvious enclaves. Despite this, the authority seemed to be styling the development as expensive housing, not making provision for a diverse mix of public and private housing, which includes families or the elderly.
My concerns are vindicated by PALM's own evaluation of the preliminary assessment, which was included in draft amendments and variations to the National Capital Plan and the Territory Plan, which were released for public comment a few months ago. The Planning and Land Management group's evaluation found that the preliminary assessment had listed a range of options for water conservation and recycling, but - and I quote:
Unfortunately, it is unclear what commitment, if any, there is from the IKFDA to any of the options outlined.
And:
... there appears to be no commitment to trial any of the options let alone a commitment to implement options.
On Jerrabomberra Wetlands, PALM found that the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority was:
... poor in identifying the extent and range of impacts that might arise from the proposal, and has no discussion of amelioration of such impacts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .