Page 3340 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
planning documentation where it will be of use. This is why Mr Rattenbury’s motion talks about incorporating information into ACTMAPi. I have to say, as an ex-IT professional, that the government has got to be able to do this and I think Mr Corbell’s amendment is very weak. I think Mr Corbell needs to tell his department to get on with it and actually incorporate this data into ACTMAPi. I think that an Assembly motion would be a very appropriate way of telling the department that this is important to the people of Canberra, it is important to the Assembly, and they need to prioritise it and do it.
I should mention that in 2006 the Conservation Council also mentioned these issues around planning. They said that the draft spatial plan suggested a biodiversity overlay could be incorporated into the territory plan to protect and conserve significant biodiversity values—so it is not just the Greens. I should also briefly mention that the EIS should have a new item in it, a trigger of planning, which will address ecological, habitat and landscape connectivity. This should be one of the EIS triggers for the Planning and Development Act. (Time expired.)
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (11.18): Firstly, I thank Mr Rattenbury for the opportunity to debate the future suburb of Throsby in east Gungahlin and to indicate I note and support the comments that have been made by my colleague Mr Corbell, the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development.
There is no doubt that Throsby is a complex area to plan for and there are a range of environmental and heritage matters that need to be considered. These considerations need to be balanced against the needs of the Gungahlin community and the Canberra community at large in terms of, particularly, affordable housing and the provision of schooling and sport and recreation facilities. It is, therefore, important that all work undertaken in relation to Throsby is comprehensive, thorough and balanced. It is my view that the government has adopted such an approach for Throsby and is taking all of the critical considerations into account.
In the context of this debate we have heard a little of the historical context, but it is worth just putting on the record again that planning for Throsby was most recently reviewed between 2004 and 2006 in territory plan variation 231, the east Gungahlin structure plan. The variation, amongst other things, created the Goorooyarroo Nature Reserve. This reserve formally protected over 750 hectares of high conservation value yellow box and red gum grassy woodlands and other ecological communities. The variation also reduced the amount of available land for residential development in east Gungahlin by approximately 300 hectares.
Variation 231 was also supported by a preliminary environmental assessment. That variation was subject to a public inquiry by the then planning and environment committee and the committee recommended to ACTPLA to review the boundaries and re-draw them back towards Horse Park Drive. In the context of raising Horse Park Drive, I think it is important, given what the Leader of the Opposition has thrown in today, to again be clear on the public record that Horse Park Drive will be built as a loop arterial road to serve the northern suburbs of Gungahlin such as Moncrieff and ultimately Casey.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video