Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3983 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

That is the first thing the committee wants to say about the proposal. If that was all the committee wanted to say, there would be no need to take the Assembly's time with this statement. However, other things are more substantial, raising general matters of concern for both the Assembly and the Government.

The first issue of concern is signposting of a site that is not developed for a long time after residential development occurs around the site. In the Chisholm case, it seems that some members of the local community were unaware that the site of the proposed development was earmarked for community use many years ago. Also, they appear to have been unaware of the wide range of uses permitted by the term "community use", which include child-care facility, community activity centre, community theatre, corrections facility, cultural facility, educational establishment, emergency services facility, health facility, hospital, parkland, place of worship, religious associated use, retirement complex, special care establishment, special care hostel, special dwelling, and veterinary hospital. As an aside, it is interesting that a correctional facility is included. I am sure the people of Chisholm would be delighted to know that the ACT prison certainly will not be going where the Revival Centre church will be going.

The committee was told by senior government officials that officials were aware of the desirability of taking steps to improve local knowledge about the future land use of a site left undeveloped for some time. One way to do this is to ensure that prominent signs are in place to identify the type of use permitted on a vacant site. The committee acknowledges that a sign is not the total answer and that supplementary measures might need to be taken. The committee wants the Assembly and the Government to know that it supports moves to increase local knowledge about the type of land use permitted on sites left vacant for some time. The committee urges the Government to facilitate the clear identification of unused land to give an indication of what it will one day be used for.

The second issue of concern relates to community input into the lease conditions applying to a site earmarked for community use at a later time. At the present time, there is no provision for the opportunity for community input into the detail of lease conditions applying to such a site. Thus, in the Chisholm case, the local community have not had the opportunity to comment on lease conditions applying to the proposed Revival Centre church. To use planners' jargon, this is not inconsistent with the Territory Plan and with planning legislation. But it creates a problem for local residents who, as in the Chisholm case, find that a particular development proposal is being considered by officials on criteria that have been developed without any local input. The committee considers that there is a case for amending the process relating to the preparation of lease conditions to require that local residents be consulted about the conditions to apply to a site. Again, the committee urges the Government to investigate this matter so that local residents can rest assured that they have the opportunity to comment on the lease conditions for a development proposal. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the statement.

Leave granted.

MR MOORE: I move:

That the Assembly takes note of the statement.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .