Page 4271 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 20 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the evidence and then come to a position. I have done that on several committees in regard to several issues in relation to the particular personal views that I have held. I have put those to one side and taken on board the evidence that is put before the particular committee.
However, as I also mentioned when I spoke to this particular motion in July last year, I have had the issue of front fences raised with me by many people in the community, especially people in the Tuggeranong Valley. It has been raised by many people, and for all sorts of reasons. Last year, when I first raised the issue in the media, we were certainly well aware of previous committees. There were, in fact, three committees of the House of Assembly. It is an issue that obviously has been around for some considerable time. I want to touch on those previous inquiries a little later, but I would also like to mention briefly that the Chronicle, I think it was - one of the suburban newspapers - ran a poll, and quite a large sample of people showed the extent to which they were concerned about the issue.
I would like to mention now that the policy that our city planning authorities have adhered to, which supposedly prohibits the existence of front fences, has been one that has set Canberra apart from other cities in Australia, although there are small residential areas in other cities that have a no front fence policy. Westlakes in Adelaide is one that particularly comes to mind, and there are other very small areas that were identified to us.
The no front fence policy has supposedly remained consistent for many years, as I said. However, there are many illegal structures, and that has been touched on in the report as well. The last identified record was in 1982. So, it is some considerable time since we were able to ascertain just how many illegal structures there are out there in the community. The report touches in some detail upon why nothing has been done since then. Given that we know many or most people in the community are law abiding citizens, they recognise the policy is one that currently prohibits them having a front fence and therefore they would not be looking to put forward a structure.
The reason why this has been the attitude of Canberra,s planners is that they believe that front fences are not conducive to a garden city environment and the garden city environment is the theme which Walter Burley Griffin envisaged for Canberra,s future. The committee is of the view, though, that the two can be consistent. As we drive around the suburbs, especially in the inner Canberra area, and we see front fence structures, we see just how well they fit in with the garden city concept.
As I said earlier, the no front fence policy has been questioned on several occasions in the past, including 1975 and 1983 when it was debated in the ACT House of Assembly. Each time there was significant support for easing the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .