Page 136 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Campbell, but we think that he should now graciously step out of that post and that he should not be appointed to head the Territory Planning Authority.
In considering the future occupant of that job, one hopes that the Government will consult the parties in this chamber because the territorial planning appointment is vital. It is vital in heritage and other areas, and we have every right to have some proper say within the usual conventions in the nature of the appointment and the range of persons who might be invited to apply for the job.
Finally, the current ACT Heritage Committee, good though its intentions may be, is proving to be an advisory body within a pyramid, and that itself has constraints. I have served on and chaired government committees under a pyramid in the past. I have known what it is like to be seen on one hand to be independent and on the other hand to report to a Minister. It is a very unenviable task, and I think my colleague Mr Moore has recognised that.
We see the new heritage body, whatever it be, as being deliberative, and in that sense it may well become part of the new planning appeals and other structures that we see for the future here. Preservation of the built environment is one thing.
My colleague Mr Moore has referred to the landscape heritage of the Territory. The Deputy Chief Minister, in referring to urban consolidation, would not, we are sure, purport to suggest that the hilltops which have remained sacrosanct in this Territory for so long will be developed.
We expect that they will be regarded in large measure as part of our landscape heritage and that we will not see urban consolidation take place on the hilltops, the knolls and the other areas of this Territory which make up the overall character of Canberra as the bush capital of Australia.
We need techniques to be developed to encourage preservation. They could include such things as free assistance from the conservation planning authorities to the owners of listed properties on designing their own alterations and additions.
As my colleague Mr Jensen has pointed out, one reason why the building at Telopea Park West had to go completely, we are sure, is that the Unit Titles Ordinance does not allow for fewer than four units in any development. Of course that noted architect and conservationist, Mr Peter Freeman, offered at a late stage to design free two units at Telopea Park West which would have taken in the house and which would have meant an extension at the rear and the sides, which would have preserved the whole nature of that built environment at 37 Telopea Park West. But of course such is the desire, as my colleague Mr Berry mentioned, for capitalisation in this area that we saw a developer go in there and ruin that particular corner of Telopea Park.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .