Page 4998 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
residents very close to the Calwell group centre who have already got concerns about the traffic on their street and the effect of what the new aged-care facility will have on that neighbourhood because there is inadequate planning and inadequate processes in place to ameliorate the poor planning and the failures of the past.
It is interesting that in Mr Tsoulias’s letter Nick says:
Whilst our community understands the importance of the Aged Care facility site, which could provide up to an additional 100-200 residences in the area, it is important we address what first what we want in Calwell, and how that will integrate with the aged care and vice versa.
And that is an important point. There are traffic problems on Were Street. He goes on to say:
There is also some debate about noise mitigation and ensuring Were Street doesn’t become the only access road from two of Tuggeranong busiest roads for the aged care site from Tharwa Drive and Johnson Drive, which carry combined approx 22,000 cars per day, as … Tony Gill once quoted at the Tuggeranong Community Council meeting last year.
There is a problem. Selling this block immediately will not address that problem. And yes, we all agree there is a problem with the provision of aged care. But making more planning mistakes now will not fix the planning mistakes of the past. And that is what is going to happen.
Mr Barr, I think, was a little disingenuous in some of what he said. He got up and tried to ridicule some of the things that I have asked to be noted. If he had read it, they are the concerns of the community. It is a very broad range from traffic to the provision of new retail, all the way down to pedestrian crossing and signage. Yes, I know some of those things are not done in master plans. But it was to put on the table the broad range of concerns of this community, from the very small matters to the very large matters. What they want is the best opportunity for their community and what the government and the Greens do today in amending this motion is take away that opportunity.
The block will be sold. I am assuming there will be lease development conditions on the block when it is sold. That is the normal practice. But what Ms Bresnan is saying in her amendment is: “That does not matter. We will then make sure that there are adequate roads and footpaths provided adjacent to the proposed aged-care site before it is built.” If that is not on somebody else’s land, not on the easement and not over the stormwater drain, the only place those footpaths and roads can be built is actually on the site. Is Ms Bresnan proposing that we sell a site with one capacity and then some time down the path change it? That leaves the government open, that leaves the community open, to the owner of the block then coming back and seeking compensation. Is that the sort of good planning process that the Greens are proposing? Apparently it is.
Mr Barr also had the glib shot, “Here is the Liberal Party, the party that want to cut red tape.” You do not cut red tape at the expense of the community. We are not saying,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video