Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3731 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I have not been impressed with the government's process so far in developing a development control plan for this area. A letter was distributed to residents in the adjacent street only a few weeks before the closing date for submissions. There was also a small notice in the Canberra Times which gave no real indication of what was planned for the area and most residents did not even notice it. A public meeting was conducted by PALM but by this time considerable work had already been put into preparing the developments control plan. So the meeting ended up being a typical "this is what we're going to do" style of public consultation rather than a more participative process that actively sought residents' views about the future of this land.

I understand that the planners had not even realised that the development would have a major traffic impact on the adjacent Hurley Street, which provides the main access between the land and Mawson shops. Only after the meeting was the traffic study of Hurley Street initiated. The residents organised a well attended public rally in protest at the government's proposal and it was only then that the government announced that the time for public comment would be extended.

I have to say that I have seen that happen on several occasions. I have heard the communities in the areas say on all those occasions, "Why is it that we don't get a reasonable time or process unless there is a very loud protest from the community? Why is it that the government won't take responsibility for ensuring proper processes are in place to begin with?"

Given the dubious nature of this proposal, I think it is reasonable for the Planning and Urban Services Committee to review the appropriateness of the development on this land and for the government to wait for the results of that review. Given that there are other areas of more suitable land that could be used for residential purposes around Canberra, I do not see any urgency in the government's proposal.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (11.10): Mr Speaker, as Mr Corbell said, I responded to the committee's letter of the 20th. It is important that we put on the record the facts regarding this site. Mr Corbell talked about the dangers of flooding and said that these things must be taken into account. What people might not remember is that we had an entirely different road structure, with a number of low - level crossings, in place in January 1971.

The flood at that time occurred because of a combination of two things. First and foremost there was what was called a one in a thousand year rain event that saw some four inches of rain dumped on Woden in particular in under an hour. Secondly, there was a low - level crossing which actually dipped down into the creek line at the then T intersection where Adelaide Avenue meets Yamba Drive. The creek itself was also unformed and parts of it were unlined. So what you had was a series of isolated things that on any other day would not have had any effect. A large amount of debris was washed down the creek and was then caught under the low - level crossing. That caused the water to back up which then had a flash flood effect.

I lived in Curtin in 1971 and we stood at the front window and watched the rain flooding down the front of our house which was situated at the bottom of a slight incline. This enormous amount of water was the result of what the Bureau of Meteorology says was

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .