Page 1038 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
eucalyptus trees". I do not know what they would have said. I have not discussed it with them to find out what they really wanted. The sense I did get was that they did not want eucalyptus trees. In that little cul-de-sac, with no more than 20 residential units, it would not have been unreasonable to ask them what they would like.
The Minister talked about the predetermined landscaping plan, and I can understand what he is saying in the broader context; but I do not think we should deal with development as though it is all the same. It is not all the same, and in some instances it would be possible to do what Mr Humphries is suggesting. At the end of the day, the Government may decide not to go along with what the community expresses as its needs, and there may be good reasons why they should not do so. But this merely suggests that the Government should solicit views and give weight to them in whatever way they can. I do not think that is unreasonable in any way.
As long as the Government simply does not give this the broad-brush treatment and reject it in its totality, I will not feel aggrieved, and I do not think the people in Starritt Place, Macarthur, will be either. I think it is a fair proposition that, when the circumstances are right, the people who live there should be asked what they think, and that is essentially what this motion says.
MS SZUTY (11.47): I have listened very attentively to the words that have been spoken in this chamber this morning on an issue that I think we all have some concerns about, and that is the landscape quality of our city. I asked Mr Humphries before the debate exactly what the intent of his motion was. I think some confusion has arisen in the minds of members in this chamber about the intent of Mr Humphries's motion. On the face of it, consulting and soliciting the views of local residents before deciding on tree planting for streets in newly developed suburbs seems reasonable. As the Minister set out in his remarks, we know that the planning for the very high-quality landscaping we enjoy here in Canberra happens often many years before local residents move into a new area. Notwithstanding that, I think Mr Kaine's point about seeing the development of the ACT as happening in various stages and in various ways, and perhaps the department being a little more proactive in talking with local residents in particular areas, is a good idea. The Minister might take that on board, particularly where areas of urban renewal are being developed across the Territory.
I noted that the Minister talked about how the landscape for Gungahlin was decided upon, and it goes back some years. We are talking about the late 1980s and it is now 1994, and people are only now moving into the new town centre of Gungahlin. We know that there was an environmental impact statement for Gungahlin approved initially and a landscape policy prepared. A draft outline of the landscape planning was developed by the planning and land section of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning. The land was subdivided and a deed of agreement was signed, which included a concept outline for landscape. This was all happening at a very early stage. Then there is a development plan, an implementation plan, presented, and approvals are given. Developers then provide sketch plans and final details of the whole estate, which includes landscape and tree planting schedules. The land is then developed, and part of the landscaping, including drainage, floodways, local open space and playgrounds, is completed. Land sales proceed, building and construction occurs, and new residents purchase and move in.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .