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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4329 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I move:

That the report be noted.

Mr Speaker, this report raises yet again the issue of development in the inner north of Canberra. The B11 and B12 proposal was the proposal to vary the Territory Plan in order to make some modifications to the way B1 and B2 operated in that area. The committee has taken the unusual step of rejecting this variation to the Territory Plan. But it is not an outright rejection. I believe that, had the committee had another six or eight weeks, we actually would have been able to come up with a series of recommendations for a slight modification to the proposal which would have given us a positive outcome.

What the rejection of the variation by the committee has done is give us a bit of breathing space. The committee has been very specific as to what the Government should do in that breathing space to revise this variation and then resubmit the variation to the new Executive after the election. Mr Speaker, in many ways the committee, I think - and other members, no doubt, will speak - was uncomfortable with the notion that we were rejecting it, because we felt that, under different circumstances, we would have been able to deal with this issue. As far as that goes, I put the blame fairly and squarely at the Government's feet. They could have done the variation much earlier than they did and, therefore, got it to the committee earlier than when we received it. Had we received it somewhat earlier, we would have been in a position to address the issues ourselves and make specific recommendations to the Government as to how the modifications could occur, rather than having to adopt the process that we have adopted.

Mr Speaker, the specific matters that we seek to have addressed before the variation is resubmitted include the need for appropriate, extensive community consultation, including with Housing Trust tenants, on the section master plans and the new urban housing code. Whilst the Planning Authority and the Executive obviously responded to criticisms of the original variation of B11 and B12 by establishing section master plans and adopting new urban housing codes, the community has not had a reasonable opportunity to understand just what that means for them. It is entirely appropriate that they do, because it affects not only their daily lives, but, in fact, the very places in which they live.

In relation to section master plans, Mr Speaker, there is a need for the development of section master plans to be the subject of consultation at the whole-suburb level. It is no good having a section master plan that is done just in isolation. The highest priority, of course, should be given to the individuals within that section; but it still must be done in the context of the broader suburb. This was highlighted for us by somebody who appeared before us, who was concerned that a section master plan for the area across the road from him and the already approved development, as I recall, across the road from him would have a major overshadowing effect coming from across the street and, as such, would have an important impact on him. That is not to mention the traffic in a very narrow street, which he was concerned about.

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