Page 4508 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The site has access from National Circuit, Hobart Avenue and Dominion Circuit and existing roads have ample capacity to meet any increased redevelopment of the site.
Mr Speaker, I am a bit cynical, I am afraid, about some of the statements in these documents in relation to traffic issues and traffic management issues around the ACT. I believe that on a couple of occasions proper homework has not been done or, if it has been done, the result has not been available to the people to test it out. I think it is important that a little more than what I have quoted be included.
What is not included is a comment about the drainage problems that we all know exist in Forrest. The document just says:
Adequate public utility services adjoin the site.
There is no indication there that there have been and always will be, unless they are fixed, drainage problems in that area. In my mind, that is a deficient document. There was no requirement for models either. There is just a very brief figure 4 on page 10 of the document dealing with implementation principles. It is just a little diagram that shows where it is intended to site the clubhouse and an outline of where the townhouses might be. There is no real indication, I would suggest, as to what might be required. I believe, as do quite a lot of people in Canberra, that this sort of process needs a considerable overhaul. If we must look at development proposals for these sorts of variations, we must be given much more information on the scale of development proposed. That is not provided here.
As we heard yesterday, Mr Speaker, this sparse green document entitled "Interim Planning Act: Draft Variation to the Territory Plan" dated May 1991 and subtitled "Draft Variation for Public Comment" elicited some 104 comments. Only the variations to the various school sites have resulted in more comments on a draft planning variation. The significant thing here, of course, was the nature and content of these responses. Page 8 of the Planning Committee report quite clearly shows that, according to information obtained from the Planning Authority, 78 of the submissions were opposed to the redevelopment outright and 18 were opposed to aspects of the proposed development. Only eight submissions favoured the proposal as outlined. It then goes on to talk about three meetings with residents on the draft variation, and I will talk about that briefly later on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .