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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4479 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

I want to put on record that the people who have been lobbying me have been doing it in good faith and with a great deal of concern for their own community both in the short term and in the long term. I in no way disrespect their views or take lightly what they have brought before me. I think it is quite fair that they tested the possibility of putting this sporting venue in a series of other places. There were actually 19 that were mentioned. They tested with a great deal of strength all the matters that were of concern to them. This was done in a round table discussion and then by way of instruction, and further followed up in the preliminary environment report. I did find that their arguments were compelling. Their concerns were very genuine and were driven by an interest in both the immediate impact of this proposed development on McKellar and the surrounding streets of the suburb and the long-term impact potentially because of the capacity for the site to grow. I respect their views. I found that they were acting, quite clearly, in the best interests of their neighbours and the rest of Belconnen.

I think it is also important to put on record that the context within which McKellar residents are working towards getting a good outcome for this site is one which is complicated by the traffic arrangements around McKellar. One of the roads has become a reasonably major arterial road to Gungahlin, so for people coming into and out of McKellar there is a level of frustration already being experienced which I believe spills over into the anxiety about the soccer site. They are already dealing with traffic problems. Those traffic problems will be relieved in time as decisions are made about John Dedman Parkway and Owen Dixon Drive, as the further road development is going ahead there. I believe that that is one of the complicating factors in the current decision, because people are already experiencing a level of difficulty that perhaps the rest of us do not experience.

However, having seen their concerns and having attended quite a few public meetings and been part of this process, I think that the Minister and his advisers have acted with great sincerity and a great level of care to follow up each of the concerns that have been raised and now have produced for us in writing a response, not only in amplification of what was already in the PER, but following through a different range of issues which came on board after the PER was completed. I have read this response. I think it allays my concerns. I am sure it will not allay some of the people's concerns, and I respect their right to retain their anxiety; but I think, given that this level of work has been undertaken, that each of their concerns has been taken seriously and in writing, and I think there should be no further impediment placed to the Minister granting this lease.

The site was originally proposed to take a 12,000-seat capacity. That seemed to me to be the basis of the greatest level of concern and anxiety within the community. It is now to stop at 6,000. The parking capacity within the site is well and truly large enough to contain most of the traffic. The other anxieties that the community has about the movement of traffic, I think, will be allayed in time, as I said before, by the further roadwork development that is proposed, but also by the great care which the proponents of the project are taking in terms of responding to the concerns that have been raised.

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