Page 3126 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
environmental outcomes whilst protecting the yield. If people are aware of some of the various designs that are out there that take account of this, I do not think you actually lose that much yield if you do it right. But if you are obsessed with certain ways of designing suburbs and designing subdivisions, that makes it more difficult.
At one stage—I think it may have been in the climate change committee—I was putting to Mr Savery how they were doing that within the context of new urbanism. They talked about the parallel streets and rectangular blocks. Essentially, I think we concluded that the difference was that some of the rectangular blocks become oblongs or triangles. That demonstrates that there is a bit of an overly strict interpretation of how things should be done. That limits yield and therefore also limits your ability to respond and have as many blocks with solar orientation as possible.
I know that Mr Smyth is keen to make a contribution within the allotted 20 minutes that the opposition has been given on this issue, and of course we are sticking to our 20 minutes, but I would just conclude on the point that I started with: the importance of planning and getting planning right, not just for how our city grows, how our city looks and the amenity of our city but also for economic growth in the territory.
It is a very important economic agency, in my opinion. We believe that there are still significant structural reforms and cultural reforms that can improve outcomes and ensure that the intent of the changes to the planning system, which we always believed were a reasonable framework, can be implemented in a way that delivers the kinds of outcomes that were originally intended.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (12.47 am): There are just two issues that I would like to canvass. The first issue is the Fairbairn Pines precinct. This could have been raised in any of a number of portfolios; it might be TAMS, environment, the EPA, JACS, Regulatory Services, or WorkCover in industrial relations in the Chief Minister’s Department. It is about where activities on adjoining blocks conflict. Through quizzing several ministers and then putting questions on notice, I found that no-one was particularly responsible for this area or the problems that are occurring there.
Basically what we have is two pastimes next to each other—motor sports, particularly motorcycle riding, and a firm that runs the paintball facility at Fairbairn Pines. The operator is having considerable difficulty. He has gone to several of the departments. There seems to be an across-the-board denial of responsibility for the good servicing of this area and the good maintenance of order in that place. All the paintball operator wants to do is run his business. He wants to run it safely, but sometimes the noise is so loud that it is impossible for safety instructions to be relayed from those in charge to keep those who are playing paintball safe. On occasions, he has shut his facility down.
I am just making the point here that we need to make sure that, where several areas of government intersect, there must be a pathway forward so that members of the community can get reasonable, decent and timely service out of their government.
The second area that I would like to speak to, and again it is an area that has crossover, is the area of horse paddocks. It was dealt with in some form in the hearings with ACTPLA. On page 270 of volume 2 of the report there is a recommendation:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .