Page 1689 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 3 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
accommodation and leisure land use policy for blocks 9 and 13 in section 12 of Deakin with residential land use policy with a B15 area specific policy.
I first became aware of this proposal during the run-up to last year’s ACT election when I was contacted by concerned locals who, of course, have now become my constituents. Deakin residents were very concerned that this key site, so close to their shopping and community facilities, was to be redeveloped, with very little notice and opportunity for them to have a say. I have consulted with residents and wish to bring to the Assembly their assessment of the processes and outcomes related to this significant change to their suburb, of course, with an overlay of my own thoughts about it.
First of all, on the consultation: I would like to express the Deakin Residents Association’s appreciation of the fact that this proposal was considered by the Assembly committee, although, of course, a change such as this usually requires a committee inquiry. Even so, the opportunity for the organisation to appear before the committee was greatly appreciated. In a sense, this was a reaction to what they felt was very poor consultation prior to their being invited to appear before the committee.
The committee’s report outlines the consultation processes undertaken by ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA), the National Capital Authority (NCA) and the proponents of the development with residents of Deakin. The committee disagrees with Deakin residents’ complaints about the consultation process. Nonetheless, I believe that their concerns are valid and should not be dismissed because they do not suit a committee with a majority membership of government members.
Their complaints include, firstly, the fact that consultations about the development did not include full information about the height of the proposed building. It is likely that there would have been many more objections if this highly pertinent information had been made known at this point.
Second, residents complained that advice of the planned development and opportunities for comment were sent to an ACT Assembly committee and some out-of-town town councils but not to the broader Deakin community. There was no advice to Canberra community councils, residents groups or residents, businesses or other organisations around and fronting onto main avenues and approach roads. It was the proverbial tip-off that alerted residents to the proposed development.
Third, there was the sense gained by members of the Deakin Residents Association that the outcome of the processes was a foregone conclusion due, in part, to the minister’s evident enthusiasm for the development and a lack of clarity about the areas of NCA and ACTPLA’s responsibility and authority in relation to consultation and to building characteristics such as height.
It is understandable that there was confusion, since the existence of federal and territory planning authorities adds a degree of complexity to decision making in the ACT, which is spared our state-based fellow Australians. It is important that correct, easily comprehended information is made available to resident groups early in the process, not halfway through and in response to insistent requests.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .