Page 4373 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Each initiative appears to have been considered in isolation. By considering the neighbourhood as a whole, each of the services within the neighbourhood can be considered in context and the real costs and values determined. Just one example might be the real costs, both for the individual and for the community, when a mother drives three suburbs away to a baby health centre rather than walking to a local facility with the baby in a pram.
It is appropriate at this point to return to the Lansdown report, which stated that, in the context of urban consolidation and residential amenity, the preferred option was:
... that the Planning Authority specifically identify urban areas with different residential characteristics and different levels of visual and physical amenity, and introduce more development, (non-statutory) guidelines and timeframes which are area specific and appropriate to each locality.
The report went on to note that this approach was potentially very resource intensive and, as a result, recommended that initial area focus might be simplified to five broad areas, with these areas being subject to more detailed study and community liaison. The report also suggested that, as a subsequent task, the Planning Authority could also progressively identify specific localities where more detailed controls could apply.
Madam Speaker, it is clear from his report that Mr Lansdown is advocating more consultation by the Planning Authority with local communities; but in many areas there is little or no sense of community at a local level, and what there is is being eroded by government action or inaction. In this context it would be appropriate that consultation in respect of these local areas be undertaken in such a manner as to promote community development. This could be done in a number of ways: By satisfying a need in the community to have influence; building leadership and decision making skills within the community; clarifying the planning process and keeping the community informed; encouraging community self-support and self-reliance; promoting interaction between interests groups; and validating opinions voiced in the community, strengthening community cohesion and developing mutual support networks.
Madam Speaker, the long-term value to Canberra of strong and vibrant communities is incalculable. The willingness is there in our local communities to contribute to the development and management of those communities. It needs the Government to accept the challenge and to regard neighbourhoods in a holistic way. Only then, I believe, will we see the flowering of neighbourhoods and the development of a true sense of community throughout Canberra.
MR STEVENSON (3.56): There is concern about neighbourhoods. The particular point I would like to raise concerns the right to live in relative peace and quiet in a neighbourhood, and particularly the concern that so many people have about large trucks and other commercial vehicles operating from residential areas. First of all, it has been said that people have a right to a living. Indeed, they do; but, under law, and in commonsense, it is the same as the right to swing your arm - it ends immediately before someone's nose.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .