Page 4260 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That consultant's report was not made available to members of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee; we were informed that it was regarded as commercial-in-confidence. It was therefore difficult, I believe, for members of the committee to understand exactly what the demand for the area would be and the overall timeframe.
We also received a submission and representations from the Queanbeyan City Council, which indicated that an equivalent-zoned area in Queanbeyan of approximately six hectares has generated no interest in its use for advanced technology manufacturing since 1988. In fact, the Queanbeyan City Council formally objected to this draft variation on the ground that the economic impact on Queanbeyan had not been assessed. The council has offered to participate in such an assessment, should the ACT Government agree that it should be carried out. It certainly can be argued that the economic implications of decisions such as for the establishment of an advanced technology manufacturing estate have not been assessed in the past. I think that is fair comment.
It was stated that the ACT was not consulted when the Queanbeyan City Council made a decision on the site of their advanced technology park in Queanbeyan. I believe that we have been doing a bit better in terms of our planning since 1988, and I do not think there is any reason for ignoring the Queanbeyan City Council's request to look at the economic impact such a development would have on Queanbeyan in particular. The Queanbeyan City Council identifies statements in the Territory Plan which talk about planning in the subregional planning context. They quote a section from the Territory Plan, as follows:
However, there are very strong physical, social and economic linkages between the ACT and the nearby areas of NSW, particularly with the City of Queanbeyan, which is an integral part of the Canberra metropolitan area.
Further, the National Capital Planning Authority has indicated that the appropriate upgrading of road infrastructure is heavily dependent on whether a decision is made to proceed with stages 2 and 3 of the site. Current thinking indicates that the development of two intersections will be needed opposite stages 2 and 3 and that, should only stage 1 proceed and only one intersection be developed, public safety concerns will need to be addressed. The National Capital Planning Authority sets out in its letter to the Territory Chief Planner dated 22 September their concerns over that issue.
Although it is usual in the preparation of draft variations to the Territory Plan, an implementation plan specifying requirements for the development of a site was not provided to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee for examination and scrutiny at the time we considered this draft variation. It was stated at the time we had our discussions that there were too many parameters to be taken into consideration for an implementation plan to be developed at this stage. The National Capital Planning Authority have indicated that the implementation plan is intended to form the basis of a development control plan and will need to be agreed to by the National Capital Planning Authority before the development of the estate may proceed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .