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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2710 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I would prefer that there be no road, but if there is to be a road we should at least be making the road as efficient as possible. The committee should look further into the extra environmental impacts caused by the eastern option.

We also heard yesterday that the government is not pursuing the fauna overpass north of Caswell Drive, which will create an even worse environmental impact on the ridge as this road will severely disrupt fauna movement on the ridge, let alone the disruption to the recreational activities of runners, cyclists and walkers. It will also increase the risk in car accidents.

In their original inquiry the committee noted the government's earlier agreement to examine the feasibility of fauna overpasses, and this may have played a role in reducing their concerns about the environmental impacts of the road, if they had such concerns. The committee needs to look again at those environmental impacts.

The concerns of the Aranda residents also need further examination. Both options require the upgrading of Caswell Drive, and I know that the Aranda Residents Group has put forward a proposal to move Caswell Drive to the east. I think the committee should examine this proposal as it does have a significant impact on this corner of the Black Mountain Reserve.

The committee also needs to examine the response of the National Capital Authority to this variation now that it has come to light that a variation to the National Capital Plan is necessary for this road to proceed. I understand that the NCA did not provide a submission to the committee's earlier inquiry, yet this road has an impact on the national capital status of Canberra because of its passing through the inner hills which are designated areas under the National Capital Plan.

534 submissions were received on draft variation 138. Obviously there is a lot of concern in the community about the variation. The committee is being derelict in its duty to respond to community concerns. The significant change from the draft variation released for public comment and the final draft submitted to the minister is that the route of the inter-town public transport corridor has been changed. The route from the AIS to Belconnen Way between Bruce and O'Connor ridges has been dropped and the IPT now joins up with the Gungahlin Drive extension, with the assumption that the IPT will now travel down the drive to Belconnen Way.

This raises new issues of how the IPT will be integrated with Gungahlin Drive and how the intersections of the IPT with Gungahlin Drive and the IPT with Belconnen Way will be designed. I understand the committee was taking a great interest in the effectiveness of the intersections on various routes. They have no idea about this. They have not looked at it. I think the committee should certainly be examining the feasibility of this change and how it would work.

A further issue that has come to light is that in the government's haste to finalise the plan variation it may not have complied with the notification requirements in the land act. Sections 19 and 21 of the land act clearly set out what the correct sequence of steps should be to ensure proper process, and it appears that this sequence of steps has not been followed for this draft variation.

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