Page 4646 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The future subdivision development applications will confirm the area’s zoning subdivision pattern and the number and type of residential dwellings. The planning for the development will take into consideration the requirements of the Territory Plan, including the outcomes of environmental and tree surveys, stormwater management to protect the Molonglo River and environmental values within the river reserve, and the recommendations of a bushfire risk assessment.
Given the findings of previous environmental studies, it is unlikely that the development application would seek this area to be rezoned for recreational purposes. As such, it is not considered necessary to withdraw the Coombs peninsula from the land release program.
I appreciate the concern that some residents of Coombs have raised regarding the future use of the remaining part of the peninsula. I can understand that, as this land is yet to be developed, there may be a perception that it should remain open space. Yet the planning for Coombs and the wider Molonglo Valley has always indicated that this area has been allocated and is proposed to be developed for residential purposes. This has been the case since variation 281 to the Territory Plan took effect in 2008.
As I have mentioned, the proposed land uses in this area have been determined through numerous planning and environmental assessments, with consideration to the various opportunities and constraints of the area, in addition to its desired future character. Land uses and development will be confirmed through the future development application process under the Planning and Development Act 2007 and the determination by the independent planning and land authority.
MS CODY (Murrumbidgee) (3.18): I must say that I am a bit baffled by this motion. I might just be a hairdresser from Kambah with a strong interest in the development of international human rights jurisprudence, but I cannot figure out how the Liberals got to where they are on this one. Mr Coe is well and truly on the record as saying he would like to bulldoze high-value nature conservation areas to build houses, yet they seem to want to preserve a bit of land that used to be a pine plantation and is of no particular value.
The Liberal Party are effectively saying that they will develop any green space land apart from this one parcel. Is this giving notice that the Liberal Party is repudiating Mr Coe’s position on land development? It is normally polite to at least sack a leader before going around and backflipping on all of his positions. Is this the price of him staying, or is the plan to preserve this area and bulldoze high-value conservation areas for housing?
Maybe, after so long in opposition the Liberal Party has decided to try an innovative new policy approach: pave paradise to put up a parking lot, but preserve the scraggy bits of not very much, just to tease conservationists with. If this is the new approach of the Canberra Liberals, I look forward to coal juggling in the chamber. As an advocate for vocational education, I would like to note that all Canberrans are able to enrol in the excellent performing arts courses at the CIT, but I am not sure whether juggling or clowning are part of the course. I am sure the not-quite leaders of the opposition—all four of them—are investigating and will let us know.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video