Page 2231 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 4 August 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Variation 309 received 46 submissions during the public consultation period. The main issues raised related to the loss of parkland in the context of city growth, alternative sites that should be considered, the proposed landscape plan that should be implemented, the current and future use of part block 8 section 25 Turner, the need for a long-term master plan for the area, the potential impact of the proposal on traffic and road safety and compliance with noise levels and impacts on property values.
Changes to variation 309 were made following public consultation to responses to those concerns raised. Prior to public consultation, draft variation 309 proposed to rezone the site from PRZ1 urban open space to TZ1 transport zone. However, public submissions indicated that if the proposed bus layover does not proceed then the land would no longer be available for urban open space uses. Accordingly, the draft variation was amended to retain PRZ urban open space zoning of the site. While “public transport facility” will be added to the Turner precinct map and code to allow development of a bus layover, the retention of its current zoning would allow the site to be returned to parkland if the layover was no longer required.
With the satisfactory responses and amendments made to variation 309 to address those issues raised, further assessment and support from the standing committee, I feel confident that the community’s concerns have been adequately addressed.
On 26 November last year the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services started an inquiry on variation 327, capital metro stage 1, and they completed their report on 11 June this year. The standing committee did not form an agreed view on the draft variation as it stated in the report:
The members of the Committee hold differing views on the merits of the Capital Metro project as a whole.
I would like to point out that the variation itself does not give any approval to the light rail project—it establishes definitions for light rail and associated key infrastructure in the territory plan. This is intended to remove any potential ambiguity around the permissibility of light rail in the ACT. It also provides a clear assessment path for future light rail proposals. It is a shame that some members of the committee missed that point. It further explicitly stated that the draft variation should not be considered as an endorsement or a condemnation of the capital metro project itself. And, whilst no recommendations were made, the committee did show support for the introduction of the terms “light rail” and “light rail depot” to the territory plan.
In regard to the concerns of submitters to the draft variation, the standing committee believed that the concerns raised regarding the development of the light rail could be addressed and managed to the satisfaction of the submitters. Furthermore, the standing committee’s dissenting report from the chair, Ms Meegan Fitzharris MLA, and member Dr Chris Bourke MLA recommended that I, as the Minister for Planning, approve draft variation 327.
The government has now responded to the report and dissenting report, and I now have tabled the government responses to the report for variation 327. I would like to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video