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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 419 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

In fact, those lights were being used in 1993 in my last year at Rivett when I was coaching Royals fourth grade. Certainly, they had a lot less spill than the old lights used to have and they were regulated to go off by 9 o'clock. There were no complaints about the lights even though they would have been about 30 metres from my place and 20 to 30 metres from the houses on the southern side of the oval which looked directly out into them, and there was not much tree cover.

At Yarralumla the nearest residence to a lighting column will be about 80 metres away, and there is dense screen planting and trees separating them. Distances increase markedly after that. So the closest residence is about 80 metres away, and there are some very large trees around there. I am familiar with the oval. I was aware that this motion was on the table so about a week ago I went out to the oval in order to refresh my memory. Some of the trees lose their leaves in winter but they are very large and about 80 metres away.

As Mr Corbell quite correctly says, Planning and Land Management were involved and approved this. Following the receipt of objections, Planning and Land Management referred the application to the Commissioner for Land and Planning, who sought detailed background on the lighting design, the light spill, the ground usage, the times of operation and so on. Computer modelling has shown that light spill is very minor and that it is in compliance with Australian Standard 4282 for obtrusive light. The commissioner examined the information supplied and found that it adequately addressed all objections and that it met all relevant provision of the Territory Plan.

The specific objectives of the Territory Plan for areas classified as urban open space, against which the proposal was assessed, were: firstly, providing appropriate quality and quantity of open space to contribute towards meeting the recreational and social needs of the community; secondly, providing for a range of outdoor passive and active recreational activities in a variety of settings which serve the needs of the community, are accessible to the public and are conveniently located for potential users; thirdly, providing for compatible uses which are appropriate in nature and scale with the surrounding open space such as park maintenance depots and small-scale social community facilities; and fourthly, ensuring that the development does not unacceptably affect the landscape or scenic quality of the area, adequacy of open space for other purposes, access to open space or amenity of adjoining residents.

The commissioner found, on all the evidence before him, that it did not, therefore, warrant a refusal. He recommended approval of the installation, subject to those conditions. Those conditions related primarily to hours of operation, which he stipulated as being Monday to Friday, with completion by 9 pm, again to protect the amenity of nearby residents. Those conditions aligned with the normal practice at every other ACT sportsground of a similar type.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, had there not been that level of detail and scrutiny, and maybe had we been a bit back in the process, we could well have taken a step back and had another look. But in all circumstances it has gone through all the hoops. It has been properly assessed by the Commissioner for Land and Planning-and I do not think anyone is suggesting that is not the case-who has looked at it in detail and imposed relevant and responsible conditions on the operation.

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