Page 2276 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 1 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
one written form or another. All the committee's recommendations and conclusions relating to the redevelopment of the Canberra Times site are subject to the qualification that they are in accordance with the policies enunciated and which bind planning in the ACT. Both the Interim Territory Planning Authority and the National Capital Planning Authority believe that the Civic and metropolitan plans, which were crucial to these considerations of the committee, may validly coexist. Legal advice to the Government indicates that, in the event of any conflicts, the Canberra Civic plan prevails to the extent to which it provides more specific policy directives.
The committee's view is that, on the basis of evidence presented to it, the redevelopment of the Canberra Times site would not be inconsistent with either plan. However, I personally am of the view that the development is inconsistent with the 1984 metropolitan policy plan and may be inconsistent with the 1989 Civic Canberra plan to the extent to which the proposed development is of a scale unrelated to likely post-construction private sector accommodation requirements. However, the committee itself considers that likely impacts on traffic, parking and pollution levels must be assessed and that that assessment should be subject to public comment.
Irrespective of any government decision relating to this redevelopment, parking restrictions should be introduced for residential streets close to Civic. The committee notes recent announcements by the Government but has not had the opportunity to discuss those, of course. The committee considers that the course of action the Government should adopt is to surrender and regrant the lease, but only if a proper assessment indicates that the development is in accordance with the policy plans and only if the impact will be minimal. However, I personally disagree with the term "minimal" and emphasise that policy directives cannot be diluted. Also, the committee's view is conditional on the Government actively discouraging public sector occupation of the building. This is a view which I personally believe is essential and mandatory on the Government, and I draw to the attention of the house my further comments, some by way of dissent, at appendix 3 of the report. Overall, the report dealt with the very important issues facing the community. They include, of course, a balance between claims of urban degradation and the business and proprietary interests behind the development.
The committee has had extensive input from various sectors and comprehensive submissions from the proposed developer and the developer's consultants and advisers. The community was not far behind the proponents of the development in giving detailed advice to the committee in relation to the concerns, particularly those of the inner city residents. The issues raised by the inner city residents are principally met by the committee's report, and I have made some additional comments on them too.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .