Page 5577 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think it is very unfortunate there has been a lot of misinformation spread on this issue. From what I can see, the spaces which were once set aside in the concept plans as formal ovals will instead be used as landscaped urban open spaces, which will still allow for kids and others to run around but will not have the same water requirements. It will still allow kids and older people to play sport, if that is what they so desire. In fact, Mr Barr gave a quite exciting list of sports which might potentially be played in the open space that will still be there in Crace and Casey, even after this technical amendment.
As far as I can tell, there is going to be no reduction in the amount of open space available to the community. The main difference is that it will be a less thirsty landscape. And that has got to be a good thing. In fact, I would say, given that there is considerable open space in both of these suburbs, what is actually missing from the concept plans, probably due to the age of the plans, is community gardens. Given that there will be water control ponds in both suburbs, they would be great. You could add them at this stage, possibly with another technical amendment.
In regard to (1)(d), it is true that people have purchased houses in Casey and Crace and it is true that the dwelling numbers are in the concept plans. But I doubt that many residents or potential residents actually read these plans. When I looked at the land sales site—and I am going to quote from the Crace page—what it said in the headline that you had to click on to get in, like your software registration, was:
AT CRACE THINGS ARE CHANGING ALL THE TIME!
Because we’ve had so much interest in Crace, we’ve put everything in the fast lane! As a result, the pictures and plans you see on this site may change slightly (or in some cases quite a lot) as the project progresses.
Given that people have to click that when they first go into the Crace website, it is hard to see that anybody would have felt that there was any definitiveness really about anything with Crace. So it is hard to see that (1)(d) is really a reasonable concern.
In regard to (1)(e), yes, it is quite true. Consultation on technical amendments is limited. That is the nature of technical amendments.
In regard to (1)(f), I do not agree with the suggestion that the change made a significant change to the dynamic of these suburbs. I do not agree. I think, however, the recent publicity on Crace and Casey will have upset potential residents or residents. I have already had emails from people upset that they are losing open space, when this is simply not the case. If you read or heard the Liberal Party’s comments on Crace and Casey, you would believe that these suburbs have been turned into high-density suburbs. That is not the case.
Regarding the proposal in (2)—and I have already explained that there is considerable confusion in the community about what the scope of a technical amendment is meant to apply to—I would suggest that you read part 5.4 of the Planning and Development Act if you are one of the confused people, as I was before preparing for this motion. While I disagree with the detail in this part of the motion, I do not disagree with its
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video