Chief Minister’s Darwin plan lacks coherence, vision.
More like Shanghai than Singapore!

The Environment Centre NT (ECNT) says the Chief Minister’s draft plan for the future of Darwin is more like a developer’s wish list than a coherent plan for a sustainable people-friendly tropical city.

ECNT Coordinator Peter Robertson said that although there were some good, if vague, ideas in the document, these were contradicted and undermined by proposals for large scale heavy industrial and suburban expansion in and around our number one natural asset – the Harbour.

“These plans for expanded heavy industry (such as the proposed three-fold expansion of the LNG plant) together with suburban sprawl (e.g. new suburbs south of Palmerston and around the south of the Harbour on Cox Peninsula ) have not been properly thought through and raise many fundamental issues about rational planning, environmental protection and community health and safety.

“For example, people are not going to travel or relocate from around the world to look out over a Harbour choked with hazardous industry and suburban sprawl – they can do that at home.

“As well as being internally contradictory, the plan is silent on many crucial aspects of the City and its environment.

“For example there is no mention of the need for enhanced public transport to avoid the City becoming more and more car-dependent. Similarly there should be a big push to take advantage of Darwin ’s climate by widespread adoption of solar energy but this too is not mentioned. Nor is there any mention of actually protecting the Harbour.

“We are also deeply disappointed by the uncritical adoption of the Planning Department’s flawed proposal for major heavy industry and suburban development on the Gunn Peninsula coast north of Darwin (the Glyde Point project).

“Overall, this plan seems to have been compiled by asking all the different development lobbies (mining and gas; ports; real estate; military; tourism; government departments) to write down their respective wish lists for projects within a hundred kilometers of Darwin, and then incorporate them holus bolus into the ‘plan’.

“This is NOT planning – and it risks Darwin ending up more like Shanghai than Singapore.”

“It is a great pity, and something of an insult, that only developers appear to have had any direct input into this ‘plan’. Perhaps if there had been some wider community input it would not appear so limited in vision and coherence – and so potentially disastrous.”

Further comment: Peter Robertson 8981 1984 / 0409 089 020