Page 3068 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These are two of the more significant variations that have come before the Planning Committee since its creation by this Second Assembly. They are important for two reasons. First of all, in relation to Wanniassa, and in particular section 151, blocks 17 to 21, these blocks have on them existing Housing Trust houses which have been determined to be no longer appropriate for residential use. There are a range of reasons that have been debated at length within the Housing Trust and within the Government. The variation is to allow for medium density development on this site.
The Planning Committee was quite concerned at this proposal and questioned the officer in attendance from the Housing Trust, Mr J. Reynolds, who is the manager, property development. The committee satisfied itself that this was a new and innovative approach to the issue of public housing in the ACT. We questioned Mr Reynolds in some detail as to the consultative processes that had occurred, and the committee was quite satisfied with those. In regard to the architectural considerations, the committee was satisfied as to the process that all the groups involved - that is, ACT Public Works and the Housing Trust - had entered into. I would like to congratulate those officers for the amount of work they put into this variation.
The second variation is generically referred to as the Fern Hill Park redevelopment. It is proposed in Bruce, section 33, blocks 3 and 4, and part of section 2, to allow medium density development in a large area outside the existing precinct of the Bruce technology park. This came before the committee in a minor form in June of this year and was rejected by the committee on the basis that there were wider issues that needed to be answered. I must say that the committee, in receiving this proposed variation, was once again extremely appreciative of the work undertaken by Mr Tomlins, the Chief Planner, Mr Johnston, the principal planner in Belconnen, and the other two persons who attended the committee - Mr Peter Guild, First Assistant Secretary, Land Division, and Mr R. Nichols, the principal planner for Woden-Tuggeranong. The process they adopted to ensure the widest possible public consultation was consistent with every tenet of the existing planning legislation and with what we regard as good planning procedure.
Members will note that in our report in relation to Bruce we have made a number of suggestions. Firstly, the committee specifically notes that the survey of Aboriginal artefacts is to be completed before development begins. In the conservation report accompanying this variation, it was noted that further work needed to be done in this regard. We accept on face value the undertakings of the planning area of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning that this will occur. As I have said, the committee was extremely appreciative of the way in which the department undertook the renewed investigation into this development. I commend this report to the Assembly.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.04): I would like to comment briefly in connection with the recommendations by the committee on section 33, blocks 3 and 4, and part of section 2, Bruce. Anybody who is concerned about the processes of planning in the ACT - and there are some who have some concerns - ought to take heart from this case study. The first proposal for variation that came to the committee, as Mr Lamont has already pointed out, was confined to a very small area of ground where it was proposed to change the lease purpose from commercial to residential. In arriving at its recommendation, the Planning Authority had conducted only restricted public consultation. In fact, they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .