Page 3606 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
committee to suggest to the Government that when they consider the design and siting requirements for this area they take into consideration that issue. While four floors would be allowable on Jerrabomberra Avenue and Canberra Avenue, the committee's view was that development on McMillan Crescent should be restricted to two floors.
In relation to Braddon, section 22, blocks 6, 7, 8 and 9, again the decision of the committee was unanimous. The design and siting issues were discussed. The technical requirement for our committee was to determine whether or not the proposed land use variation was a good thing and could be justified and to ensure that the proper procedure was followed in arriving at its recommendation. That left us in somewhat of a difficult position, Madam Speaker, because the majority of objectors to this variation agreed that the committee should allow the variation to go through. They indicated that it was appropriate that this area be developed, but the major objection was in relation to the design and siting policies. Those who put forward the most substantial objections objected to the way in which the building was to be sited on the block and/or the architecture. That raises a number of interesting points. One of the objectors said, "I have an alternative proposal. I own the block next door. I support redevelopment of these blocks, but I propose that there be a different style of development". Looking at the indicative plan which this person provided, there were a number of serious issues that I would have taken into consideration in looking at such a variation.
One of the objectors proposed that development go right up to the rear fence and the side fences at the rear and that two buildings at the front go right up to the side fences with the sides of the buildings facing Torrens Street. I would not consider that appropriate development on that site. This proposal would have been rigorously objected to by the Planning Authority. There is a requirement for development on that site to front Torrens Street. Following this consultation, following this process, there have been a number of variations to the architectural design of this building to take account of the issues that have been raised by the objectors.
Let us then come on to the next variation, West Belconnen. The simple fact is that the process in relation to West Belconnen areas A, A1, B, C and D has been in the public arena for in excess of 18 months. Some would suggest that the area itself, let alone definitive proposals for it, has been on the public agenda for 10 years. I must personally thank Dr Binnington from the West Belconnen Residents Action Group, who last year and early this year alerted me and a number of other people to a range of concerns about areas A and A1 in particular but also area D. He also made a number of comments about the proposals for areas B and C. It was not just Dr Binnington; a group of people were concerned that original undertakings for areas B and C - area B in particular - did not allow for a buffer zone between the existing suburb and the new suburb. That issue, in my view, and in the view of the majority of the committee, was answered in the draft variation put forward by the Planning Authority.
The Planning Authority prepared an EIS which was tabled by the Minister at the beginning of the last sitting period. Madam Speaker, when I received that report from the Minister, I took a look at the issues that had been raised in relation to the West Belconnen area, particularly areas B and C, and the information that I had
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .