Page 4291 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 25 October 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is no reason to think that this will not happen at the Federal Golf Club if there is not finally some integrated planning done for not only the Federal Golf Club but, I would contend, all the golf clubs in Canberra. This is an ongoing problem. The issue is long-term, holistic planning. Despite what Mr Gentleman said in his speech, this does not seem to be what ACTPLA is currently doing.
On 20 September I asked Minister Gentleman about the two proposals:
Minister, what will you do to ensure the joint impacts are considered, not just separate impacts?
Mr Gentleman said:
The important thing here is that our Planning Directorate works with the engineers within the traffic section to ensure that the traffic engineers have input into the planning system, to make sure that the impact on our roads across the ACT and the impact on traffic in the ACT is regulated along with any approvals in Planning.
He did not say the cumulative impacts would be considered. You would have thought it was the job of a competent planning authority to look holistically at these issues. What ACTPLA is doing is simply not good enough.
I will move on to my calls on the government. The first call is not to proceed with separate Territory Plan variations for residential developments for section 66 Kent Street, the federal golf course and other sites immediately adjacent to Red Hill nature reserve. Importantly, please note that I am talking only about Territory Plan variations. Any development that only requires a development application—in other words, anything that is already consistent with the Territory Plan, such as normal extensions and knockdown rebuilds—would not be affected by this.
We should only proceed with a joint Territory Plan variation for these sites after the completion of an integrated plan for Red Hill nature reserve and surrounding residential areas that, firstly, includes a detailed environmental plan to protect Red Hill nature reserve from the impact of proposed developments. That is clearly essential. It is a nature reserve; if there is any point in having nature reserves we have to look at the impact of developments on them.
Secondly, the integrated plan should address the joint transport and amenity impacts of the proposed developments. The important point there is the word “joint”. There is no point in looking one by one at developments and everyone saying, “Oh, it’s only going to add an extra couple of cars. It doesn’t make any difference.” After you have enough extra couple of cars, it does make a difference.
Thirdly, the plan should include a detailed investigation of the old Deakin tip site and rule out development in any areas that may be contaminated and unsafe. That is clearly common sense—we do not develop on top of contaminated sites. Lastly, the plan should limit development to proposals that have been developed in close consultation with the community and have a reasonable likelihood of majority
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video