Page 474 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like to go through those key issues. First, the draft variation process itself was a key issue. We dealt with that matter in our report and our conclusions are quite clear, and I would like to read them. At paragraph 6.7 on page 22 the committee says:
The Committee considers that on any reasonable ground the changes made to the original proposal are significant and it is apparent that these changes were the result of progressive input through the community consultation process.
We then go on in that chapter to outline a range of other matters as far as that process is concerned. Noting the concerns of some members of the community, both as individuals and as representatives of their community association, we proposed, and this has been accepted by the Government, that there be far more attention placed upon the preconsultation process, the formative stage of any proposed variation, whether the proponent is from the private sector or is the Planning Authority or some other body within the ACT administration. The Planning Authority has acknowledged that that is the direction that they are moving in. That is the first of those key issues.
The second key issue was the consultation process, and I have just outlined some of the issues as far as that is concerned. In relation to the draft variation process, the committee concluded that, on any reasonable test, those processes required to be followed had been followed to the letter. That quite clearly has been said. That was the second key issue. The third key issue was the policy on urban infill. We addressed the question of urban infill on pages 25 and 26. The report says quite clearly that the committee is satisfied that allowing for residential development in this area is not inconsistent with the Y plan and is not inconsistent with good urban planning. It goes on to note:
The Planning Authority comments as follows on this matter:
The Y-Plan, which was published by the National Capital Development Commission in 1970 as the metropolitan plan for Canberra in its publication "Tomorrow's Canberra", identified North Watson as part of the urban area and essentially confirmed what had been the development intentions for the area since the late 1950s.
Under the Y-Plan, North Watson was earmarked for broadacre institutional type uses and tourist-oriented developments ... with residential development being noted as an appropriate complementary use.
I will come back to that when I deal with chapter 11 of our report. We identified another key issue, which was the whole of the North Canberra area strategy, and we dealt with that in some considerable detail in our report. We took considerable evidence from a range of people who appeared before our committee, representing the North Watson Subcommittee of the Watson Community Association, ACTEW and the Planning Authority. We dealt with that issue. There was quite clear recognition by the committee in its unanimous report that we were satisfied with that and the way it had been put to the committee. There was no dissent. It is a unanimous report by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and it clearly says that we were satisfied that that key issue had been addressed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .