Page 79 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: We put them out for comment and, because there was one issue in particular that raised some interest in the community, the resolution was that the PDI Committee would take them on board, and that has further prolonged the situation. I have no trouble with that; I think it is a good process. But I do not think it is fair to hold the Planning Authority responsible for the time that has taken.
Mr Kaine: You are misquoting me, Bill. I did not say that.
MR WOOD: I am desperately sorry. I would not want to misquote you, Mr Kaine, but that was my memory.
These four variations, tabled today but released via the Speaker over the last week, have all been approved by the Executive and are now tabled for the consideration of this Assembly. Before commenting on the committee's specific recommendations, I would like to take the opportunity on behalf of the Government to acknowledge the work of all members of the committee in dealing with these important proposals. I am sure that they have been very much part of your lives now for many months.
As mentioned by Mr Lamont, the committee held numerous public hearings and provided many opportunities for all interested parties to have their say. I believe, as members of the committee themselves have stated often, that in dealing with these variations the committee has again demonstrated its value and the benefits which flow to the community as a whole. I think the planning process is a particularly good one to incorporate into the committee structure. There has been lots of praise today for members of the committee and, quite rightly, for the secretary of the committee and for community groups. I am sure that you will all join with me in praising the Planning Authority and the other officers of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning, who have worked extraordinarily hard to complete this process. All those officers are proud citizens of Canberra and they are proud professionals as well. They share with everyone here and in the community a pride in the bush capital and they feel privileged to work in a position where they can constructively add to the beauty of our city.
I turn to the individual variations, beginning with the Richardson site. The committee's report on this variation has endorsed a proposal for 250 dwellings, as well as making provision for the restoration and future maintenance of the Tuggeranong Homestead. I believe that the committee has considered all aspects put before it by the community groups and government agencies. The recommendations go a long way toward providing a solution that meets the community's concerns over the heritage issues but also assists the Government to implement its urban renewal policy.
The second variation concerns North Watson. This variation has been the subject of an extensive consultation process, both before and after the preliminary environmental assessment and the formal release of the draft variation. Indeed, Mr Kaine and I and Mr Moore were at a meeting arranged by the Planning Authority during that preconsultation process. There has been some comment about preconsultation, but that is exactly what happened. There was preconsultation, and we are developing that further, as you know.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .