Page 1496 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not share the distrust Dr Foskey has for the capacity of existing planning laws to deal with this development application. There is already sufficient provision for an assessment of environmental and noise issues under the approval process for the application, and I am not convinced that this process is insufficient to consider these issues.
The valid concerns of community residents can be dealt with as objections to the application, which can be lodged as part of the planning process, and the merits of those objections can be assessed under new laws of the territory. Quite regularly matters come across my desk where people do raise objections and they are taken into account and often have an impact on the final determination.
In relation to the noise analysis issue, I am somewhat confused by the call for a rigorous examination of the potential noise impact since it is my understanding that a noise analysis has already been conducted for the development. My office was fortunate to receive a briefing on the development proposal, and it was made clear that the preparation had involved an analysis of noise levels for the surrounding suburbs.
I hear what Dr Foskey said about her own office—and we share the same concern in that we are not experts on the physics of noise propagation—so I am not in a position to say whether this analysis was sound. However, if the analysis is questionable in any way, then this again can be settled during the objections process for the application and contrary views can be put.
One part of the motion which I find particularly objectionable is the requirement for a public investigation into the relevant merits of all possible locations for the development. This is a very open-ended requirement and it is hard to see how it could ever be satisfied since the list of possible locations for a development is virtually endless. Mr Smyth has suggested what he believes is a preferred location, but I do not think he is suggesting that every single possible scenario in the ACT ought to be exhausted. That is what effectively is meant by this motion.
I do not think it makes sense to place an onus on a developer to prove that the location they propose is the best possible location out of all possible locations for their development. It is for the developer to choose the location they wish to build on and make the proposal for the development that they wish to build. The government or the authority may approve or reject the proposal, based on the planning rules and an assessment of the application. But it is not appropriate to redesign the proposal and tell the developer where and what to build. Governments have a role to play in the release of land, in decisions on zoning for this land, but this too has to be done in accordance with planning laws.
In this case, the situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that ActewAGL is obviously partly owned by the ACT taxpayer or the government. However, it is a separately incorporated entity, not wholly owned by the government, and is therefore an entity which must make its own decisions about its proposals.
It is certainly the case for this development that there are objections by a significant number of members of the community, as Mr Pratt has pointed out, to the location of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .