Page 1349 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 10 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is all well and good to say that we need public consultation every time. That is true. But we have to adopt a commonsense attitude. I am not privy to the discussions the former chairman, Mr Lamont, had with Ms Szuty or Mr Kaine or anybody else; but, as a member of the committee, I in no way, shape or form believe that in this case the integrity of the planning process was anything but upheld. Of course it was upheld. It always is upheld, and it is up to members, if they believe that it was not upheld, either to put in a dissenting report or to explain very loudly where they believe that it was not upheld. I am quite happy to join with Mr Berry and Ms Szuty to support the proposal before us.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE -
STANDING COMMITTEE
Report on Guidelines for Residential Development
MR BERRY (3.23): I present report No. 27 of the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure on guidelines for residential development in the Forrest, Red Hill, Deakin and Griffith historic areas, together with a copy of the extracts from the minutes of proceedings. The report was provided to the Speaker for circulation on Friday, 6 May 1994, pursuant to the resolution of appointment. I move:
That the report be noted.
This report of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee is tabled for members' information only, it being directed in the first instance to the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. This reflects the fact that the Minister and the Planning Authority agreed to refer the draft guidelines prepared by the authority to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee for investigation and comment. The committee thanks the Minister for this action. Members will recall that the committee has already reported on two of the residential guidelines - those for area B1, North Canberra, and area B2, Kingston-Griffith. This report completes the process, but there is a further report to come.
In reviewing the proposed guidelines for the historic areas, the committee was made aware of special claims being made for the Old Red Hill area, and we were advised that a final heritage assessment by the Heritage Council would be forthcoming at the end of July this year. We therefore decided to excise the Old Red Hill area from this report and revisit it once that heritage study is available to us. For the balance of the area, however, the committee has endorsed the proposed guidelines, though we urge one strengthening, namely, that what is described as mature landscaping be required where trees have been removed or damaged during construction work - that is to say, that well-developed trees are planted in the course of that landscaping.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .