Page 1004 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
might limit the scope of the local sporting club and hotel to hold large functions and community events. Did the government know any of this before today? I think not, because their definition of consultation is planting a sign in the ground.
Let me spend a moment to briefly look at the discussion on parking in the LDA site investigation report for block 8, section 34, Hawker. On page 23 the report notes “the lack of any indicative and consistent up-to-date car park usage data within the Hawker Shopping Centre”. There is no up-to-date data. The approach was then taken to make some estimate based on the generic models in the ACT parking and vehicular access guidelines. Then a single car park occupancy observation was made during a Thursday in February 2008—a single observation on a single day. How can conclusions be drawn when considered against a generic model when we are looking at a single observation of occupancy?
The LDA’s report answers that question. It notes on page 24 that the parking assessment, when made under the guidelines I mentioned earlier, indicates that the current supply of 474 parking spaces, which does seem a lot, falls short of the 611 that are indicated by the guidelines. The guidelines require that this number of spaces “are required within 200 metres of the existing developments to satisfy the minimum parking provision requirements and to meet all relevant objectives”. Yet on page 25 the report notes that the outcome of the single on-site observation on a single day in February 2008 indicates “a significantly lower demand”.
Here we have another dichotomy. On one hand we have a model based on the government’s own guidelines that says that existing car parks and infrastructure are inadequate and on the other hand we have a single observation on a single day that says that parking infrastructure is more than adequate. What has happened? The inconvenient answer has been tipped out in favour of what the government considers the right answer—that is, the answer that the government wants. And the government has gone ahead with the proposal to sell the car park without any consultation with the community.
Car parking is not the only issue. On reflection, I think that perhaps my motion unduly emphasises car parking. There are other issues here. The main issue is that the people in the Hawker group centre did not know that this was happening and have not been involved in any discussion about the future of their area. This is an important business; these are important people. The government is making decisions which impact on the lives and livelihoods of business owners and is based on a car parking study of a single observation on a single day in February 2008.
While the government is making decisions that impact on local communities, churches, clubs and businesses, it has done so on very flawed and insufficient information. The community is concerned: if it has made a decision based on that very obvious failure, what are the other failures in the process that led them to consider selling this block without consultation with the community? Is it any wonder that the owners of shops and businesses at the Hawker group centre are concerned about the government’s definition of consultation?
As I have said, car parking is only one aspect of the issues raised here. A quick glance at the conditions of sale creates more questions than it answers. It creates uncertainty.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .