Page 133 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is leaving out the interests of the poor and aged, who are entitled to access to the central areas of our fair city and to some place which is reasonably close to their places of work and the sorts of services which are found around the centre of this city. Too often I have heard proponents of heritage legislation arguing the case in favour of forcing the value of property up and preserving their place of residence at a cost to those who are not so rich and powerful.
I believe that we have to ensure that in any heritage legislation there is balance and that reasonable stocks of low-cost housing are available to those in the community who are not so powerful as to own a place which might find its way on to the heritage list and which might therefore have its value improved because of its uniqueness.
MR WHALAN (Deputy Chief Minister) (4.11): Mr Speaker, as a member of the Government I can state quite categorically and emphasise the point made by the Chief Minister, that the Government recognises the need for firmly defined guidelines on heritage issues which have been publicly debated, accepted and then enshrined in legislation.
The Government's commitment to introduce legislation will ensure protection of Canberra's environment worthy of protection, and it has been clearly stated in our policies. At the same time, however, we must make certain that heritage issues are viewed in the context of the balanced development of the ACT.
Our planning goals clearly reflect this view. They are: to ensure the availability of sufficient land located as conveniently as possible for ACT residents; to link the serviced land with community facilities and open space; to conserve the significant and beautiful features of both the natural and the built environment of the ACT; to provide suitable land for economic activities and ensure that such land is readily available; to regulate development so as to maximise returns to the community, preventing exploitation or speculation, and to set standards for design, siting and safety for all buildings and construction and administer such standards effectively.
The Government needs to ensure that an additional 2,000-plus dwelling units per year are provided to meet a conservative estimate of Canberra's growth. The cost of providing that future housing in greenfields development areas, such as Gungahlin, must be carefully weighed against other possible, more feasible and economically viable options, such as urban consolidation.
When we look at future land development strategies, there must be a balance between greenfields land and urban consolidation. I accept that urban consolidation inevitably means the redevelopment of some areas within the older established areas of Canberra and, of course, these are just the areas where there would be some concern for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .