Page 198 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
talking about. I did ask for the report to be noted because I felt that there were points that needed to be raised and, as I am not on the planning and environment committee, the Assembly is the only place where I can put my point of view.
I am certainly happy to endorse an increase in the gazetting of new areas of open space in the territory plan. It is very important that such places be gazetted, because this gives communities security about the areas that they visit, that they look at, where they walk their dogs et cetera, and they know that those places will remain there for a reasonably long period, if not in perpetuity. However, it is clear that there is inequity in the provision of secure open space in the ACT, and I will look at that further on.
In reading the submissions to the committee, I came across a multitude of views about how people see open space. While, as I mentioned, some people value it as adding to their amenity, others see open space simply as a fire hazard—a place to grow grass, which is then going to be a nuisance. Some people just see it out of their car windows and hardly even notice it, and others see it as just a space that is waiting to be filled with more suburbs, more roads and more houses. Clearly, the Greens do not share this latter view.
Most of the submissions received were from local communities concerned about maintaining their open space amenity. I will not go into detail on those areas here, but it was clear that some residents, for instance the Griffith community, had a different idea from ACTPLA about their open space amenity, as only part of block 34 was zoned in the draft variation. It was pleasing to see that, probably as a result of community consultation, part of block 33 was added. In some areas, football ovals and school grounds are zoned as open space, but it needs to be pointed out that these do not replace parks with mature trees, and they are not necessarily public land to be enjoyed by the public.
Robert Boden, the former director of the National Botanic Gardens, makes the point that people’s access to treed areas gives them the opportunity to enjoy the kinds of trees that they are unable, for space and safety reasons, to plant in their yards. We can enjoy an autumn experience by stepping out into parks and kicking the autumn leaves around; we may not have the space to do that in our own yards, if we are lucky enough to have one.
The Commissioner for the Environment points out that the variation did not take adequate note of the habitat value of trees, both standing and on the ground, and their potential as significant trees excludes the importance of young trees that are not yet significant. Young trees below 12 metres, I think it is, do not fit the definition of significant trees and are often just mown down in the developing as urban services grass cutting occurs.
It is clear that the succession of plantings is a major issue for Canberra with its ageing trees. Some trees are able to live for a very long time; others become old and die within a few decades. I am not sure whether that was thought about when our suburbs were planted. So there is major work ahead in caring for and replanting the trees that make our bush capital.
Of course, an increasing number of people do not have private gardens and this makes access to public open space even more important. For instance, Woden has not got a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .