Page 1561 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other day, talking to somebody, I observed that, although Canberra's planning regime is much more comprehensive than that available anywhere else in this country, changes in the way in which we plan future development and infrastructure changes are far more contentious in this city than anywhere else in Australia. Although there are obviously matters of contention in other communities in this country, we face enormous problems in engineering change. That is an astonishing reflection, but I think it is undoubtedly true. That was brought home particularly recently when I attended a meeting of the Weston Creek Community Council, at which there was discussion about the need for urban renewal. That was a matter of grave concern to residents who attended that meeting. It was accepted that steps need to be taken to revitalise the amenity of Weston Creek and that basically meant having more people living or working in Weston Creek as a prerequisite for making that happen. I think that was a wise conclusion to have reached, but when the question of how that was actually to take place was put before the meeting there was tremendous concern.
Mrs Carnell: Not in my backyard!
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, the "not in my backyard" refrain was heard very widely around the room at that time. It was agreed that we should move to develop some of the designated open spaces within Weston Creek which had long been available for land development and that that should be the basis on which to renew the area. But everybody, at some point or another, was able to identify some open space, designated for development or not, which was, in their view, sacred or vital to the amenity of their own residence. That is an extremely difficult problem. In this city we have constantly experienced the phenomenon of having land designated for some purpose but not being used for that purpose for some time - a couple of decades perhaps - and then, when we came to use it for the purpose for which it was designated, there was tremendous opposition to that happening. That is a great problem for us all to face.
Mr Connolly raised the question of schools and the implications, for urban infill and renewal, of closing some small schools. I have to make the point, as I have made before, that in freeing up spaces in the heart of suburbs for such redevelopment you are able to engineer a fundamental change in the structure of small communities and provide, usually in the heart of that suburb, for medium density or even high density housing, which not only serves that suburb but also provides for some element of, as Mr Lamont puts it, economic and environmental viability for surrounding suburbs. Because their catchment area is enlarged in those circumstances, they are able, for example, to provide larger numbers of people for schools and other services, and that is an important way of engineering that change. The Government is not inclined to accept that kind of change, although there are some school sites that are still on its hands for it to deal with, and I suppose in due course it will consider what to do with those sites. But for the time being we are not looking at that avenue.
I think it then becomes incumbent on the Government to decide what other avenues are available to achieve the sort of urban renewal that Mr Lamont mentioned in relation to his motion. We are all agreed on the objective, but I doubt that any two of us would agree on the way to reach it. The question of meeting that objective is fundamental to the success of not just urban renewal but our whole planning system in the Territory and to the provision of services at the level at which we currently enjoy them. In one sense I am glad that it is the Government, rather than I, which has to face up to that question in the first instance. I look forward to seeing the fruits of its labours.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .