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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4485 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

The proposal complies with the Territory Plan. The site is an old builders' spoil tip and its potential uses are, in fact, very limited. That is something Ms Horodny should think a little bit about. Its land use is really very limited. The land use policy for the site was established as being for clubs, community uses and sportsgrounds, and it was signposted more than 10 years ago. The club's proposals are entirely consistent with the policies of the Territory Plan.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, a number of delays have occurred, a number of things have happened over the years, and a number of proposals have been put forward. Some delays initially occurred due to road gazettal and adjustment of fill levels, which took the project through to about 1992 and was actively promoted by the club. A new development plan was lodged in September 1994 and this has been the basis of negotiation since that time. This facility essentially involved the construction of an enclosed oval, at that stage seating up to 12,000, a licensed club and ultimately an indoor sporting facility. The adjoining district playing field site was to be developed to provide open training fields.

This proposal has been through extensive evaluation by planning agencies and has been subject to an exhaustive process of public consultation, moving through several stages. There has remained a very vocal but apparently reasonably small group of residents who have consistently opposed the project. This has forced the PALM group and the Department of Urban Services to take the process to the current stage of preparing a public environment report. I commend my colleague the Minister for the Environment on a very thorough process in terms of assessing concerns. It is a thorough process. A lot of work has been done in relation to this site. The club, quite sensibly, has addressed the main problem, and that was that 12,000 people might have been too many and 6,000 was more realistic. From what I can gather, the main concern of local residents, and a realistic one too, was a fear of parking problems. That, I think, has been addressed by limiting the seating to some 6,000. The club's proposal has been modified to that extent in deference to the legitimate community concerns. The most significant change is to reduce the oval's capacity to 6,000.

The project is to include a licensed club of up to 2,500 square metres and up to 12 accommodation units, primarily for visiting sporting teams. I think the project can be seen as a valuable enterprise on the part of sport to provide quality facilities. It will provide an enclosed oval, two training fields and, later, an indoor sports centre for both the proponent, soccer, and other sectors of the sporting community. All of this is to be carried out at no recurrent cost to government, although I understand that some assistance may be sought through SLISS, the sports loans interest subsidy scheme. It is primarily a proposal funded by the Belconnen Soccer Club. Figures in the range of about $13m to $15m are spoken of here. That is a considerable amount to be spent by that club to the benefit of the community.

Canberra has a number of very good facilities. We have a number of enclosed ovals which quite comfortably can take 1,000 to 2,000 people, seated and standing around. When you look past that, what do we have? We have Manuka and Phillip, which can take probably about 10,000 at present, seated or standing, and then Bruce Stadium, with about a 25,000-person capacity. This proposed oval will fill a niche we have at present

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