Page 4064 - Week 15 - Thursday, 17 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In a bid to propose mitigation of the impact of domestic pets, the consultants have put forward the view that the standard to be achieved is "responsible behaviour by humans in relation to pets and their own activities". The environmental impact statement also states, as a mitigation of the threat posed to fauna by domestic pets, that the exclusion of pets should be recommended, if necessary, for conservation reasons. Madam Speaker, it would have been useful to consult with the RSPCA on this issue. I am sure that their representatives would say that there is no way that such recommendations are able to be implemented. I would like to see responsible pet ownership, but sadly a lot of people feel that their pets have just as much right to the natural environment and its resources as the native fauna.
Madam Speaker, I wish to turn now to the area of most concern - the insistence that the population living in the proposed 3,000 dwellings to be constructed can make use of existing services in Belconnen without major disruption or overcrowding. The immediate issue that I feel needs rethinking is the proposed lack of primary school facilities. While the Government is insistent that local primary schools have the capacity to take up the expected increase in young children in the area following the development of West Belconnen, it fails to identify the numbers of young children that it expects to fill these schools, and over what timeframe.
Charnwood Primary School is identified at page 108 as bringing area C into its priority enrolment area, and at table 5.1 the environmental impact statement outlines the level of excess capacity at each school. However, on page 78 of the report, Charnwood is identified as having the highest proportion of nought- to four-year-olds in the area adjacent to the proposed development and a high proportion of five- to nine-year-olds. The Charnwood area itself will be therefore generating a consistent demand for primary school places over the next five to 10 years, and children from West Belconnen area C may find themselves being bussed to more remote schools.
Similarly, Macgregor has a fair proportion of children in these age groups. Holt, Higgins and Latham would appear to be the suburbs where children are reaching high school age, which indicates to me that there will be more children bussed more than three kilometres to school. The environmental impact statement and the evaluation report both make a great deal of the fact that students will need to travel only 2.1 kilometres to school, which is only just over the recommended distance. However, on the figures provided in the existing socioeconomic profile, I cannot see how this aim can be realistically achieved for even a majority of students.
With students at high school and college, this is not such a major concern. However, children up to the age of eight could be vulnerable traversing larger distances. The environmental impact statement uses as part of its premise on the development that there will be a high proportion of first home buyers living in West Belconnen; I refer to page 100. These people will probably want to start families, if they do not already have children. What the environmental impact statement fails to recognise is the predominance in Canberra of two-income families, which means that children often have to travel to school unaccompanied or are dropped off by parents who are on their way to work. The most desirable option for the younger school community is for parents to drop their children at school, but this may become difficult when school is several suburbs away.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .