Page 371 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the new Planning and Development Act. This new, current planning legislation has a clear process for site feasibility studies, including thoroughly exploring other sites. It is probable that the Tuggeranong site would have been looked at quite earlier. The fact that the Tuggeranong site was zoned broadacre and the new site is zoned industrial makes the new site far more appropriate for this sort of development.
Not only were there problems with the site selection process, but the Auditor-General’s report raised significant concerns that the direct sale process offer of a block of land in Tuggeranong was outside the normal process, somewhat rushed, not well justified and documented. There was no comprehensive process of evaluation for the site selection process and land release.
We understand from the Auditor-General’s report that ActewAGL was treated almost as a government agency throughout the project development process and other government agencies responded to ActewAGL’s urgency with that in mind. It is one of the major concerns about this process that, from the outset, the focus seemed to be finding every way possible to expedite all processes and ironically this has possibly led to the situation we are in today, with a bill to enable it to be moved.
I would like to note that, in this project being moved to the new site, for expediency reasons the merit track is being used, when such a large-scale project should ordinarily be assessed under the impact track. We understand that processing this project under the impact track would cause long delays and thus the EIS data will be transferred to the new site wherever possible. However, we need to ensure that this EIS process is done properly without any more of these improper side steps.
One of the positive effects of moving the data centre off the Tuggeranong site is the reduced direct impacts on the health treatment facility nearby. Given that there is a zoning loophole in regard to the health facility whereby it is in broadacre zoning, which allows more noise than residential areas, I have grave concerns about the likely impacts of excessive noise, especially during construction but also during operation, as well as the additional traffic and lights. Given that the new site is zoned an industrial area, there will hopefully not be the issues of noise and visual amenity which there were with the Tuggeranong site.
One interesting outcome from the EIS of the Tuggeranong site released last month was the finding of the Aboriginal heritage assessment. There were significant artefacts found through this assessment—34 stone artefacts in one plot and 16 in another—which was right in the middle of the proposed development site. If the proposal had still been for that site, further investigation would need to have been carried out. These sites would probably be included on the ACT Heritage Register and consideration would need to have been given to the design to avoid or reduce impacts upon the plot sites.
Further archaeological investigation and salvage of these sites now need to be undertaken on that site by qualified archaeologists and approval from the ACT Heritage Council needs to be given before any development on that site can occur. Given this information and the fact that another site in Hume was rejected due to its archaeological heritage values, I do wonder whether these findings helped influence the proponent in agreeing to another site.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .