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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (13 June) . . Page.. 1663 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

moved that the matter be adjourned in order to allow all members of this place to make themselves familiar with the complexities of this particular issue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Debate adjourned to the next sitting.

Report No 73

MR HIRD (4.59): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present the following report:

Planning and Urban Services-Standing Committee-Report No 73 The proposed Amaroo Community Precinct, dated 8 June 2001, together with a copy of the extracts of minutes of proceedings.

I move:

That the report be noted.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this report is the fourth report that I have tabled this day and all of those reports have been unanimous, as is the case with this one. This has been a speedy report by the committee, but that reflects the ability of this committee to be able to deal with local government matters when there are some concerns by local residents in respect to certain things. It reflects the concern of local residents of Burdekin Avenue, Amaroo, and nearby streets about the development of a community precinct opposite their homes. There is more to come on that shortly.

Originally the residents who purchased their homes understood that the area opposite would be designated as residential zoning. This community precinct was not on PALM's plans for areas until very recently. The residents told us that the first they knew of the plans for three schools instead of one, associated playing fields and a group centre rather than a local centre was in November last year.

In our report we are critical of PALM's consultation processes over this matter. They mark a low point in the agency's efforts to involve people in the planning of Canberra. We are also critical of the defined land provisions of the Territory Plan in the case of Amaroo. These were not well understood by residents in the area. That was no surprise to anyone. It seemed to lull PALM into a sense of not needing to do the hard work or the hard yards associated with community consultation. Indeed, Dr Cooper, the head of PALM, has stated that there will be another method introduced to inform residents of any changes. We state in our report that residents deserve certainty in relation to knowing what the planning agency intends to do for the area opposite their homes.

With this said, Mr Deputy Speaker, the committee had to deal with the fundamental issue of whether the latest proposals by PALM for the community precinct is a good idea for the Gungahlin community or not. We have concluded that on balance it is a good idea in that it will provide the early development of a much needed high school in Gungahlin along with additional primary schools and district playing schools.

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