Page 82 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 11 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
comprising affordable rental that will be managed by a community housing provider. Shops and restaurants will only be allowed where undertaken as part of a social enterprise. A social enterprise exists to create social benefit that may include employment and skills development for on-site residents. Definitions of community housing and social enterprise are included in the Dickson precinct code.
Variation 367 was released for public comment on 13 September 2019, until 1Â November 2019. Fifty public submissions were received during this time. A report on consultation was prepared by the ACT planning and land authority, in accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Development Act.
A key issue raised by the community was the possible loss of trees within the Dickson channel corridor. In response to these concerns, additional rules and criteria have been added to the variation to protect the health of existing trees in the Dickson channel corridor, whilst providing appropriate access to the site, and to allow for the active transport connection to the south of the site. Other issues were raised by the community, all of which have been addressed in a report on the consultation.
I referred the draft variation to the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Renewal to allow them the opportunity to consider the proposal, and the standing committee advised that it would not undertake an inquiry into the variation. I am satisfied that the issues raised by the community have been adequately addressed, and I subsequently approved the variation.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (4.10): I certainly welcome the changes made to variation 367 on Common Ground since it was released for public consultation. Members will recall that there was community concern when this variation was released as a draft. As Mr Gentleman noted in his remarks, locals were mostly concerned about the loss of trees, and this was raised in 48 out of the 50 public submissions that were made during the process.
The trees that were potentially under threat were not on the site per se but in the adjacent creek reserve. There were engineering drawings that suggested a road could be built in the creek reserve. This was a set of documents that members of the public drew both to my attention and to other members’ attention and that was circulated in community discussion. If the road had gone ahead it would have removed over 50 established trees, and this clearly would have been a very disappointing outcome. The area under question is quite a popular informal walking track. The trees there are quite mature and provide really both a lovely environment themselves but also quite a buffer between the proposed section 72 site and the residential areas on the other side of the drain there.
Certainly I was concerned that this particular issue about the trees could derail the much-needed public and community housing, and I think that the two issues were largely unrelated. Most people said to me they were supportive of Common Ground but concerned about the potential loss of trees. That is why I put in a submission calling for removal of the road and, if there was something to be put in that area, replacing it with a well-lit walking and cycling path. At present, as I said, it is very much an informal area, which many people appreciate, but certainly a sealed footpath
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video