Page 1647 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Moving to the Grocon-Giants proposal, it is important to note that any proposal still needs to be assessed by government against a threshold public interest test. That was clear; it was laid out by Gary Rake from the directorate to the public meeting last week the range of steps involved for the government to make decisions before a project proceeds through the unsolicited bids process.
If a proposal does proceed to the next stage of the unsolicited bid process, I would like to propose a process for the Manuka Oval site and precinct similar to that which was recently undertaken in relation to the Yarralumla brickworks, where the community was engaged in a consultative process to define the broad objectives for the precinct. This would involve establishment of a community reference group to define the broad objectives for the Manuka Oval precinct. It would include but not be limited to relevant community groups, local sporting interests, heritage experts and local businesses.
This would then set the framework to help potential proponents to develop their proposals for the oval and the precinct. It could then also be used by the government to judge whether a proposal meets community expectations. For me this is the real nub of this proposal. If we have a process where those expectations can be spelt out, as has been the case with the Yarralumla project, developers can look at that. They can get a sense of what the community can accept and government can use that as a benchmark for decision-making within government processes.
We have seen recently at Yarralumla that we can achieve positive outcomes both for the community and for the government when we involve key stakeholders and residents in the process. I think many people were sceptical that Yarralumla could get to this place because of the long history, the false starts and the level of concern in the community. But the strength of the approach ultimately adopted for the Yarralumla brickworks was the deliberative nature of discussions and the range of community views represented.
In the case of Manuka, views of residents from the area as well as broader city-wide views would need to be represented in a consultative process to ensure that the full spectrum of community views is canvassed. I note that while there has been strong community reaction against the proposal, I have also heard some positive support for the proposal with people saying some development in the area may well have merit. That is where the need for a master plan comes in. A master plan would consider not only the oval and pool area, but also the Manuka retail and commercial area and the adjacent residential and recreational areas.
It is important to note a number of individual developments are already occurring that will change the dynamic of the area, including redevelopment around St Christopher’s church and the redevelopment of the Stuart flats site. I believe many of these changes will be positive, providing opportunities for downsizers to stay in their community and hopefully for first home owners to move into this highly sought after area with access to the range of services that are available. It will continue to add to economic and social vitality of the area. But these developments will also have potential impacts on traffic and parking demand.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video