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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4477 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

in August 1995. One hundred and seventy comments were received, and on 27 September 1995 it was determined that further assessment would be required in the form of a public environment report. The directions said that the public environment report should address potential contamination across the site, potential noise impacts, traffic and parking, and the appropriateness of the scale of the development. The directions also stated that a round table conference should be convened to consider the findings of the studies.

As part of the process of ensuring a clear understanding by all parties of the extent of the scoping, a round table conference was convened. Apart from the proponent, the conference included representatives of the Belconnen Soccer Club, the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra, the Belconnen Community Council, the Ginninderra Wetlands Care Group and the Concerned Residents Network. This earlier round table conference met on four occasions between November 1995 and January of this year. Its meetings were characterised by a high degree of acrimony and, rather unusually, by a failure to identify common ground between the various parties. The process ultimately broke down without any consensus having been reached.

In the light of the concerns raised by residents' representatives and, I might say, against the wishes of the Belconnen Soccer Club, I wrote to the proponent expanding on the original scoping and asking that the public environment report also address a number of other issues. Those were water quality impacts, wetlands impacts, leasing of an alternative block of land for the purpose of providing a sports facility, socioeconomic impacts, lighting impacts, convenience of access to the site of public transport, health impacts and open space impacts. A public environment report addressing each of these issues was prepared by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey on behalf of the proponent, that is, at ACT Government expense. The additional work cost approximately $70,000 and was lodged with my delegate on 8 November this year.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, under Part IV of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act I am now required to seek further information or revision of the work within 42 days after the report was lodged, or to complete a statement evaluating that report within 56 days. My delegate convened a round table conference on the report on 28 November and, while there was no consensus achieved, I now have a comprehensive report of the issues raised by the various groups represented there. My evaluation must include an assessment of the adequacy of the report, a statement of any environmental impacts which I identify, reports of the round table conferences, and my recommendations for any conditions subject to which the proposal might be approved. This is a statutory process and will involve my absorbing and responding to a great deal of complex and technical information. The process will also involve my making judgments about the adequacy of the various technical studies in identifying and responding to potential impacts.

It is in this context that some of the community groups involved have sought to pre-empt my decision by direct involvement of the Planning and Environment Committee. I have been asked to make a response to the matters raised by various parties to the committee. I have agreed to table a response prepared by my officials, in the hope that it will lay to rest some of the more extreme claims by some groups involved in the process.

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