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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (4 June) . . Page.. 1891 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I also note that the government is committed to maintaining a library service in Kippax. I give notice to the government that I will not support the sale of any of these blocks for commercial development until there is a definite commitment to building a new community facility.

Mrs Dunne's disallowance will achieve nothing towards getting a new community facility. Rejecting the inclusion of block 53 in precinct "a" would mean that this block will just remain in its current zoning of precinct "b", which is primarily for offices.

The motion has no effect on the land occupied by the existing library. I understand that the reasoning behind the disallowance is that, if block 53 is kept in precinct "b", there will be less incentive for the government to sell it off because it won't be as valuable as it would be if it was in precinct "a". I do not think this logic is very strong, particularly now that the government has made a commitment to not sell this land until a decision is made about a new community facility.

Turning to the other part of Mrs Dunne's motion, which is about that zoning in the Calwell group centre, I know very little about what development is proposed on these blocks as I have not been approached by the developer involved. The precinct "c" proposed in the variation would allow a broader range of land uses than the current precinct "b", but I understand that the developer wants to put in ground floor housing, which is one of the few uses that are not allowed.

I am reluctant, however, to support a change to the plan variation at the last minute without any knowledge of the implications. This is not the way that urban planning should be done. If someone has a particular development proposal for Calwell, then they are free to put it forward independently for detailed assessment by PALM.

In conclusion, while I am prepared to let this plan variation come into effect, I do not regard this as the end of the matter in relation to Kippax and Calwell group centres and look forward to further proposals regarding development in these areas.

MS DUNDAS (6.25): The Australian Democrats will not be supporting this motion either. The concerns of the Kippax community are very real and do have an incredibly long history, but there are certain ways that their problems need to be addressed. The current community facilities are quite inadequate for the growing needs of West Belconnen, and changing this variation to the Territory Plan does not actually get to the core of what is needed in Kippax and in West Belconnen.

What is needed is a community facility. What is needed is a focus on the development of the West Belconnen area, a rethink of how these suburbs are growing and how their needs are not being met in the current planning processes, which seem to have a focus on the inner north and inner south only. As I said, I do not think that disallowing this variation to the Territory Plan actually incorporates those concerns.

The commitment made by the Minister for Planning today-about not releasing the unleased land in the Kippax precinct until the studies that are currently being undertaken are completed and community needs are assessed-is one that I am willing to take on board and will hold the minister to. But I am still keen to hear from the Minister for Urban Services and receive a response to the petition that I tabled earlier this month in

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