Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 929 ..
MR CORBELL: For the record, could you state that it is certainly your view that the community option does provide for an effective arterial road link for Gungahlin residents and that you do not present the position of no road? I think this is a view that is being presented quite often through the community. Can you clarify for the record the no-road argument versus the community option argument?
Dr Tanner: We have stated quite clearly in all our submissions that we support the community option. We see that as a viable alternative. It is a straight line. These things were designed originally to funnel traffic from the north of Canberra to the south, not through the city but around it. The community option does that. The government's preferred eastern option does not. It would funnel traffic directly into the city. The government's preferred eastern option is far more destructive than the community option. The community option does destroy some bush behind the Calvary Hospital. We accept that. We see there is a compromise that has to be reached.
ATTACHMENT B SUBMISSION SIGNED BY 2000 INDIVIDUALS IGNORED
During 1999 and 2000, Save the Ridge submitted several submissions signed by approximately 2000 individuals (including names and addresses) to the Inquiry. These submissions were not petitions as they did not comply with the regulations for a petition. When specifically asked by the Committee Secretariat, Save the Ridge made it clear that these were submissions.The submission read: "We, the undersigned residents of Canberra and the ACT, oppose the proposed eastern extension of the Gungahlin Parkway through O'Connor Ridge. In our view, it would destroy one of our area's most cherished assets. The proposed eastern route would be a planning disaster. If there must be a road, the 'community option' or western route is preferable on several environmental grounds.
The eastern route would seriously damage the Canberra Nature Park, destroying the present tranquility of its recreational features, and degrading its important bird-breeding grounds and rich ecological diversity. In our view, it would also damage the residential environment of much of O'Connor, Turner and its surrounding suburbs, creating permanent traffic and noise problems."
These 'votes for the western option' by 2000 residents of Canberra are totally ignored in the Committee Report.
They are not recorded in the table of submissions in the rear of the Report.They are not tallied in the count of submissions on page 138/139 of the Report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .